Navigating Cell Therapy ATMP Process Validation: Strategies for Compliance and Commercialization

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to process validation for cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), addressing the unique challenges faced by researchers and drug development professionals. It covers foundational regulatory principles, stage-appropriate methodological approaches, solutions for common troubleshooting scenarios, and the latest analytical validation requirements. By synthesizing current guidelines and industry best practices, this resource aims to support the development of robust, validated manufacturing processes essential for successful commercialization.

Understanding Cell Therapy ATMPs: Core Principles and Regulatory Frameworks

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) represent a groundbreaking category of medications that utilize biological-based products to treat, modify, or replace damaged organs for a transformative approach to medicine [1]. Within this category, cell-based therapies are primarily divided into two distinct manufacturing paradigms: autologous and allogeneic approaches. These paradigms differ fundamentally in their source of cellular material, manufacturing logistics, and process validation requirements, creating significant implications for therapeutic development and commercialization.

Autologous cell therapies involve the collection of cells from the patient themselves, followed by genetic manipulation or expansion outside the body, and subsequent infusion of the modified cells back into the same patient [2]. In contrast, allogeneic cell therapies are manufactured using cells or tissues collected from a healthy donor, which are then genetically modified and expanded in a laboratory to create an "off-the-shelf" product that can be administered to multiple patients [2]. Both allogeneic and autologous products are based on temperature and time sensitive human material, though autologous therapies face additional constraints as cells often come from patients that have gone through multiple rounds of conventional therapies, potentially affecting the quantity and quality of starting materials [2].

The manufacturing process for these therapies must occur under aseptic conditions since traditional sterilization methods are not feasible for living cellular products, requiring stringent environmental controls and process validation through simulation testing [1]. Understanding the distinctions between these manufacturing paradigms is essential for researchers and drug development professionals working to advance cell therapies through clinical development and toward commercial approval, particularly within the context of process validation requirements for cell therapy ATMPs.

Comparative Analysis of Manufacturing Approaches

Quantitative Comparison of Autologous vs. Allogeneic Manufacturing

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Autologous vs. Allogeneic Cell Therapy Manufacturing

Characteristic	Autologous Manufacturing	Allogeneic Manufacturing
Cell Source	Patient's own cells	Healthy donor cells
Manufacturing Scale	Patient-specific (one batch per patient)	Large batch (one batch for multiple patients)
Supply Chain Complexity	High (two-way patient material transport)	Lower (one-way donor to storage facility)
Production Timeline	Typically longer vein-to-vein time	Shorter treatment initiation time
Market Share (2025)	Approximately 56% [3]	Approximately 44% (projected growth)
Batch Failure Impact	Affects single patient	Affects multiple patients
Product Consistency	High inter-patient variability	More consistent product quality
Regulatory Focus	Chain of identity, patient-specific controls	Donor screening, batch consistency, scalability

Market Landscape and Manufacturing Trends

The global cell therapy manufacturing market is poised for substantial expansion, projected to reach an estimated USD 15,000 million by 2025, with a robust Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 20% through 2033 [4]. Autologous therapies currently dominate the market with approximately 56% share, particularly in the CAR-T therapy segment with products like Kymriah (Novartis) and Yescarta (Gilead) [4] [3]. However, the industry faces critical challenges in scaling autologous approaches from small patient populations to broader accessibility due to their patient-specific nature and complex logistics.

The manufacturing landscape is characterized by a dynamic interplay between large pharmaceutical companies making significant investments and specialized contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) that provide critical expertise [4]. Concentration areas are emerging around CAR-T therapies, with companies like Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb heavily invested in their commercial production, alongside a growing interest in allogeneic cell therapies offering greater scalability [4]. The global cell and gene therapy manufacturing market is forecast to reach $32.11 billion in 2025, setting the stage for growth to $403.54 billion by 2035, representing a remarkable CAGR of 28.8% [3].

A significant trend in 2025 is the movement toward decentralized and point-of-care (POC) manufacturing, particularly for autologous therapies [3]. Strategic collaborations are emerging to enable this shift, such as the partnership between Galapagos and Blood Centers of America, which leverages 50 existing community blood centers across 43 states to create a decentralized CAR-T manufacturing network [3]. This evolution addresses critical challenges in the traditional centralized model, including lengthy turnaround times, complex logistics, and limited patient access.

Experimental Protocols for Manufacturing Process Evaluation

Protocol: Automated Image-Based Cell Confluency Monitoring for Manufacturing Process Control

Principle: Accurate measurement of cell confluency serves as both an indicator of biomass in adherent cultures and a determinant of product quality during cell therapy manufacturing [5]. This protocol describes an image-based software application integrated with a high-throughput microscopy system for automated cell confluency estimation in large-scale cultivation systems.

Materials:

• Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs, episomal) from Gibco (A18945)
• Essential 8 medium (Gibco, A1517001)
• TC-treated CellSTACK (CS) or Nunc Cell Factory (CF) culture vessels
• Human recombinant laminin 521 (BioLamina, LN521) for coating
• TrypLE Express (Gibco, 12604013) for dissociation
• ROCK inhibitor Y-27632 (Sigma-Aldrich, SCM075)
• Automated microscopy system (Evident/Olympus Provi CM20)
• Compact PC (Lenovo, M920 Tiny)
• AWS cloud services (S3, RDS) for data storage and processing

Procedure:

• Cell Culture Setup: Coat culture vessels with human recombinant laminin 521. Seed hiPSCs in Essential 8 medium supplemented with ROCK inhibitor Y-27632 within the first 24 hours after seeding to prevent apoptosis. Maintain cultures at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO₂ with medium exchange every second day, starting 1 day after seeding [5].

• Microscope Configuration: Place cultivation vessels onto the CM20 monitoring platforms inside the incubator, ensuring representative monitoring of the growth area and a leveled surface to avoid inhomogeneous cell or medium distribution. Connect each CM20 monitoring platform to a compact PC controlled via the CM20H API (version 1.1.1) [5].

• Image Acquisition Protocol: Create an image acquisition protocol (API-script) to acquire images of 2048x1536 pixels from 35 positions as an equally spaced 5x7 grid within the observation window of the CM20 heads. Use the autofocus function to find the optimal focus plane for each position. Set the API-script to run cycles at 4-hour intervals, starting within one hour after seeding until the end of cultivation [5].

• Data Transfer and Storage: Implement a containerized backend system orchestrated through an on-premises computer that interfaces with the imaging instrument via USB connection. Transfer acquired images and metadata to AWS cloud Relational Database Service (RDS) and S3 buckets for storage using Ignition SCADA system to orchestrate data flow [5].

• Image Analysis and Confluency Estimation: Process acquired images using a machine learning model trained for pixel classification to estimate cell confluency. Deploy the model in a cloud environment to facilitate efficient image and metadata processing. Present predicted cell confluency results along with relevant quality metrics through an interactive web-based interface implemented using Dash for Python [5].

Validation: Validate the confluency estimation system by comparing results with manual counts across multiple cell lines and culture vessels. Establish correlation coefficients and determine precision and accuracy metrics for the automated system versus traditional methods.

Protocol: Point-of-Care CAR-T Cell Manufacturing for Decentralized Models

Principle: This protocol outlines an automated, closed-system process for producing CD19 CAR-T cells at the point-of-care, enabling decentralized manufacturing models that address challenges of traditional centralized manufacturing, including lengthy turnaround times and complex logistics [3].

Materials:

• Leukapheresis product from patient
• Closed-system cell processing equipment
• Viral vector for CAR gene transfer
• Cell culture media and activation reagents
• Automated bioreactor or culture system
• Quality control testing reagents
• Cryopreservation solutions

Procedure:

• Cell Collection and Transport: Collect leukapheresis material from the patient and transport to the point-of-care manufacturing facility using temperature-controlled containers with minimal transit time.

• Cell Processing and Activation: Isolate and activate T-cells using a closed-system process to minimize contamination risk. Use automated systems to reduce manual processing steps and improve consistency.

• Genetic Modification: Transduce activated T-cells with CD19 CAR-containing viral vector using optimized multiplicity of infection (MOI) and transduction enhancers as needed.

• Cell Expansion: Culture transduced cells in automated bioreactors with continuous monitoring of critical parameters including cell density, viability, and metabolite concentrations. Use integrated analytics to determine optimal harvest time.

• Formulation and Cryopreservation: Harvest CAR-T cells and formulate into final product using closed-system processing. Cryopreserve in vapor-phase liquid nitrogen if not for immediate use.

• Quality Control Testing: Perform in-process and release testing including sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin, cell viability, potency, and identity assays. Implement rapid testing methods to reduce turnaround time.

Validation: Document that the process consistently produces CAR-T cells meeting all predefined release criteria, including standards for appearance, sterility, impurity levels, and cell viability (demonstrated median of 97.7% in validation studies) [3]. Establish comparability to centralized manufacturing processes through analytical and functional assessments.

Process Validation Requirements and Regulatory Framework

Current Regulatory Landscape and Validation Challenges

The regulatory landscape for cell therapy ATMPs demonstrates increasing convergence between major agencies, though significant differences remain [3]. The European Medicines Agency's adoption of new guidelines for investigational advanced therapy medicinal products, effective July 1, 2025, provides comprehensive requirements for quality, non-clinical, and clinical documentation [3]. Similarly, the FDA's 2025 guidance agenda includes multiple new frameworks for cell and gene therapy products, including potency assurance and post-approval safety monitoring [6] [3].

Analysis of FDA's publicly released Complete Response Letters (CRLs) shows that from 2020 to 2024, 74% cited manufacturing or quality (CMC) deficiencies, including gaps in process control, incomplete stability data, or unvalidated analytical methods [7]. Even at the Investigational New Drug (IND) stage, an estimated 40% of submissions are delayed for CMC-related issues [7]. This underscores the critical importance of robust process validation strategies throughout product development.

A significant challenge in process validation for ATMPs is demonstrating product comparability after manufacturing process changes [1]. Regulatory authorities in the US, EU, and Japan have issued tailored guidance to address these challenges, emphasizing risk-based comparability assessments, extended analytical characterization, and staged testing to ensure changes do not impact safety or efficacy [1]. For pluripotent stem cell (PSC)-derived products, in vivo teratoma formation assays are used to validate pluripotency of PSCs as their starting materials and detect residual undifferentiated PSCs in the drug products [1]. For somatic cell-based therapies, tumorigenicity is assessed using in vivo studies in immunocompromised models rather than teratoma tests [1].

The process validation framework for cell therapy ATMPs must address three key stages: process design, process qualification, and continued process verification, each with specific considerations for autologous, allogeneic, and point-of-care manufacturing approaches. Regulatory expectations emphasize CMC readiness early in development, particularly for products seeking expedited programs [8]. The FDA's Expedited Programs Draft Guidance emphasizes the importance of ensuring comparability as manufacturing changes are made through the development process and explicitly recognizes the challenge of CMC readiness when developing cell and gene therapies on an expedited timeline [8].

Analytical Methods for Process Validation

Table 2: Essential Analytical Methods for Cell Therapy Process Validation

Analytical Method	Validation Parameter	Autologous Application	Allogeneic Application
Cell Counting & Viability	Precision, accuracy, linearity	In-process control for each batch	In-process control for multiple batches
Flow Cytometry	Specificity, reproducibility	Identity and purity for each patient sample	Extended characterization of donor cells
Potency Assays	Specificity, robustness, qualification	Patient-specific potency assessment	Batch potency release for multiple patients
Sterility Testing	Specificity, limit of detection	Test each individual batch	Test each master cell bank and final product
Molecular Characterization	Specificity, sensitivity, accuracy	Vector copy number for transduced cells	Comprehensive genetic stability testing
Tumorigenicity Testing	Sensitivity, specificity	In vitro soft agar colony formation assays	Extended in vivo studies in immunocompromised models
Cytokine Release	Precision, accuracy, linearity	Patient-specific safety profile	Batch-specific safety profile

For autologous therapies, validation must account for patient-to-patient variability in starting materials, while allogeneic therapies require demonstration of consistency across multiple batches from the same donor cell bank [1]. The genetic instability of cells caused by successive cultures represents a significant validation challenge that can be addressed through tests such as cell karyotype analysis and selection of genetically stable cells [1].

Advanced process analytical technologies (PAT) are increasingly important for process validation, particularly for decentralized manufacturing models. AI-integrated bioprocessing platforms enable real-time quality control, automated error detection, and predictive analytics for process optimization [3]. These technologies improve accuracy in processes such as cell expansion, differentiation, and cryopreservation, resulting in more consistent therapeutic products and enhancing process validation capabilities.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Cell Therapy ATMP Manufacturing

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Products	Application Notes
Cell Culture Medium	Supports cell growth and maintenance	Essential 8 Medium, StemSpan	Formulated for specific cell types; serum-free preferred for regulatory compliance
Extracellular Matrix	Provides surface for cell attachment	Laminin 521, Recombinant Vitronectin	Defined, xeno-free substrates preferred over animal-derived materials
Cell Dissociation Reagents	Detaches adherent cells for passaging	TrypLE Express, Accutase	Gentle enzymatic alternatives to trypsin; defined composition essential
Cryopreservation Media	Preserves cells at ultra-low temperatures	CryoStor, Bambanker	Contains DMSO and other cryoprotectants; controlled-rate freezing critical
Cell Activation Reagents	Activates T-cells for genetic modification	TransAct, ImmunoCult	Critical for CAR-T manufacturing; affects transduction efficiency
Gene Delivery Vectors	Introduces genetic material into cells	Lentiviral vectors, AAV vectors	Major cost driver; requires extensive safety testing and characterization
Cell Selection Kits	Isolates specific cell populations	CD4/CD8 MicroBeads, CliniMACS	Critical for allogeneic products to eliminate unwanted cell populations
Quality Control Assays	Tests product safety, potency, identity	Flow cytometry kits, ELISA, PCR	Must be validated for intended use; rapid methods preferred for POC

The selection of appropriate research reagents represents a critical aspect of process validation, as changes in raw materials can significantly impact product quality attributes. Strategic partnerships and supply chain management strategies to secure reliable sources of GMP-compliant raw materials and components are essential for overcoming manufacturing challenges [1]. Reagents should be selected with consideration for regulatory compliance, scalability, and consistency, particularly as processes transition from research to clinical development and commercial production.

For cell therapy manufacturing, there is a growing need to establish more rigorous, precise, and standardized criteria for evaluating the quality of pharmaceutical products [1]. This is particularly relevant for ATMPs, where the current assessment of safety and effectiveness in the final formulations is not as robust as it could be [1]. Implementation of quality by design (QbD) principles during reagent selection and process development can enhance process validation efforts and facilitate regulatory approval.

The autologous and allogeneic manufacturing paradigms for cell therapy ATMPs present distinct challenges and opportunities in process validation. Autologous therapies offer personalized treatment but face significant logistical challenges and patient-to-patient variability that complicate process validation [2]. Allogeneic therapies promise greater scalability and more straightforward process validation approaches but require comprehensive characterization of donor cells and demonstration of consistency across multiple batches [2] [4].

The evolving regulatory landscape emphasizes CMC readiness throughout product development, with heightened expectations for process control, analytical validation, and demonstration of comparability after process changes [1] [7] [8]. The trend toward decentralized and point-of-care manufacturing models introduces additional complexity to process validation, requiring innovative approaches to ensure product consistency across multiple manufacturing sites [2] [3].

Advanced technologies including automation, artificial intelligence, and process analytical technologies are transforming cell therapy manufacturing and validation approaches [5] [3]. These innovations enable real-time quality control, enhanced process understanding, and more efficient validation strategies. As the field continues to evolve, robust process validation frameworks that address the unique challenges of both autologous and allogeneic cell therapies will be essential for advancing these promising treatments from research to clinical application and ultimately to patients in need.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), encompassing cell therapies, gene therapies, and tissue-engineered products, represent a groundbreaking category of biological medicines with complex manufacturing and validation requirements. The regulatory landscape for these products is primarily shaped by two major authorities: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), with ongoing harmonization efforts through the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). For cell therapy ATMPs, process validation is particularly critical as it ensures that manufacturing processes consistently produce products meeting predetermined quality attributes, directly impacting patient safety and therapeutic efficacy. The regulatory approach has evolved to address the unique challenges of ATMPs, including their living cellular nature, complex mode of action, and often limited shelf life, requiring specialized guidelines beyond those for traditional pharmaceuticals.

The FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) oversees cellular and gene therapy products in the United States and has developed a comprehensive suite of guidance documents addressing various aspects of ATMP development [6]. Similarly, the EMA regulates ATMPs through its Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT), with a newly adopted multidisciplinary guideline on investigational ATMPs effective July 1, 2025 [9]. Both agencies recognize that traditional validation approaches used for conventional pharmaceuticals may not be directly applicable to ATMPs, necessitating flexible, risk-based frameworks that accommodate product-specific characteristics and clinical development stages.

Comparative Analysis of FDA, EMA, and ICH Guidelines

Key Regulatory Documents and Effective Dates

Table 1: Key Regulatory Guidelines for ATMP Validation

Agency	Guideline Title	Focus Area	Status & Date
FDA	Manufacturing Changes and Comparability for Human Cellular and Gene Therapy Products	Comparability protocols for process changes	Draft Guidance (July 2023) [6]
FDA	Potency Assurance for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products	Potency assay validation	Draft Guidance (December 2023) [6]
FDA	Frequently Asked Questions — Developing Potential Cellular and Gene Therapy Products	CMC, donor eligibility, stability	Draft Guidance (November 2024) [6] [10]
EMA	Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical requirements for investigational ATMPs	Multidisciplinary requirements for clinical trials	Effective (July 2025) [9]
EMA	GMP Guideline for ATMPs (Part IV)	Good Manufacturing Practice	Proposed Revisions (May 2025) [11] [12]
ICH	Q2(R2) Validation of Analytical Procedures	Analytical method validation	Training Materials Published (July 2025) [13]
ICH	Q14 Analytical Procedure Development	Analytical procedure lifecycle	Training Materials Published (July 2025) [13]

Critical Regulatory Alignment and Divergence Areas

While regulatory convergence between FDA and EMA is progressing, significant differences remain that ATMP developers must navigate [9] [14]. The following dot language script visualizes the key considerations for process validation in cell therapy ATMPs across regulatory frameworks:

The visualization above illustrates that while fundamental scientific principles align between agencies, specific implementation requirements differ. Both regulators emphasize risk-based approaches and the importance of identifying Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) early in development [10] [14]. However, notable differences exist in areas such as donor eligibility requirements, where the FDA follows 21 CFR 1271 while EMA adheres to the European Union Tissues and Cells Directive (EUTCD) [14]. For autologous donations, the FDA focuses on identity verification, whereas EMA requires some infectious disease testing even for autologous materials [10] [14].

Regarding potency testing, the FDA expects validated functional assays for viral vectors used in cell modification, while EMA may accept infectivity and transgene expression measurements, particularly in early development [14]. For process validation, EMA typically expects three consecutive batches, whereas the FDA emphasizes statistical adequacy without specifying a fixed number [14]. The use of platform data is accepted by both agencies when similar manufacturing processes are employed, representing a significant area of regulatory convergence [14].

Experimental Protocols for ATMP Process Validation

Protocol 1: Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) for Cell Therapy ATMPs

Objective: To demonstrate and document that the manufacturing process for cell therapy ATMPs consistently produces products meeting all predetermined quality attributes.

Materials and Reagents: Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Cell Therapy ATMP Validation

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Quality Standards
Cell Culture Media	Supports cell growth, expansion, and maintenance	GMP-grade, serum-free or xeno-free formulations preferred
Growth Factors/Cytokines	Directs cell differentiation and maintains phenotype	Recombinant, pharmaceutical-grade, well-characterized
Viral Vector (if applicable)	Genetic modification of cells	GMP-manufactured, titer ≥1×10^8 IU/mL, RCV testing
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Characterization of cell surface/intracellular markers	Validated specificity, appropriate fluorochrome conjugates
Cell Separation Reagents	Isolation of target cell populations	Closed-system, clinical-grade magnetic beads
QC Assay Kits	Testing for sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin	Pharmacopoeial methods (USP/EP) with appropriate validation

Methodology:

• PPQ Batch Manufacturing: Execute a minimum of three consecutive batches at commercial scale. The exact number should be justified through risk assessment and statistical rationale considering process variability [10] [14].
• In-Process Testing: Monitor critical process parameters (CPPs) including:
  • Cell viability (≥80% for most cell therapies)
  • Cell population doubling time
  • Metabolite profiles (glucose, lactate)
  • Expression of critical phenotype markers
• Drug Product Testing: Assess all CQAs including:
  • Identity: Flow cytometry for specific markers (≥95% purity for defined populations)
  • Potency: Functional assays measuring biological activity
  • Purity: Residual reagents, process-related impurities
  • Safety: Sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin, replication-competent virus (if applicable)
• Data Analysis: Apply statistical process control methods to demonstrate process capability and consistency. Process is considered qualified when all CQAs meet specifications across all batches.

Regulatory Considerations: For FDA submissions, concurrent validation may be acceptable in certain circumstances, while EMA allows this approach primarily for PRIME-designated products addressing unmet needs [14]. Both agencies require extensive documentation of any deviations and their impact on product quality.

Protocol 2: Analytical Method Validation for Potency Assays

Objective: To validate analytical methods used for measuring the biological activity of cell therapy ATMPs, demonstrating they are suitable for their intended purpose.

Methodology:

• Specificity: Demonstrate ability to measure biological activity unequivocally in the presence of other components. For cell therapies, this may involve:
  • Testing of relevant negative control cell populations
  • Assessment of matrix interference
• Accuracy/Recovery: For quantitative assays, spike recovery should be 80-120% [13].
• Precision:
  • Repeatability: %RSD ≤20% for n=6 determinations at specification level
  • Intermediate precision: %RSD ≤25% across different analysts, days, equipment
• Detection & Quantitation Limits: Establish through signal-to-noise ratio or standard deviation methods appropriate to the methodology.
• Linearity & Range: Demonstrate linear response across the specification range (r² ≥0.98).
• Robustness: Deliberate variations in critical method parameters to establish design space.

Advanced Approaches: The ICH Q2(R2)/Q14 training materials emphasize both minimal and enhanced approaches to analytical validation, encouraging implementation of Analytical Procedure Lifecycle Management [13]. For complex cell therapies with multiple mechanisms of action, the FDA recommends orthogonal methods or a matrix of assays to fully characterize potency [6] [10].

Implementation Strategies and Future Directions

Navigating Regulatory Differences in Global Development

Successful global development of cell therapy ATMPs requires strategic approaches to address regulatory differences:

• Early Regulatory Engagement: Pursue INTERACT (FDA) and national scientific advice (EMA) meetings to discuss validation strategies before initiating pivotal studies [10].
• Comparability Protocols: Implement robust change management systems with pre-defined comparability protocols, especially important given the evolving manufacturing processes for ATMPs [6] [14].
• Staged Validation Approaches: Leverage phase-appropriate validation strategies that evolve with clinical development, with more extensive data expected for marketing applications [10].

The following dot language script illustrates a recommended workflow for managing process changes and comparability assessments:

Emerging Regulatory Trends

The regulatory landscape for ATMP validation continues to evolve with several significant trends:

• Enhanced ICH Framework: Recent publication of ICH Q2(R2) and Q14 training materials signals increased harmonization of analytical procedures, with specific considerations for complex biologics like ATMPs [13].
• GMP Modernization: EMA's proposed revision of GMP guidelines for ATMPs (May 2025) incorporates quality risk management (ICH Q9) and contamination control strategies aligned with revised Annex 1 [11] [12].
• Innovative Approaches: Regulatory acceptance of decentralized manufacturing models, automated closed systems, and real-time release testing is increasing as technologies mature [1] [11].
• Platform Technologies: FDA's new Platform Technology Designation Program (June 2024) may streamline validation for products using well-characterized manufacturing platforms [15].

For researchers and drug development professionals, success in this evolving landscape requires proactive regulatory strategy, robust scientific approach to process understanding, and flexible validation frameworks that can accommodate both current requirements and anticipated regulatory developments. The convergence between FDA and EMA continues to progress, particularly in risk-based approaches and lifecycle management, though important jurisdictional differences remain that must be strategically managed in global development programs.

Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) represent a groundbreaking class of advanced therapeutics with tremendous potential to treat diseases. However, their validation presents unique complexities not encountered with traditional biologics. Successful commercialization requires a multidisciplinary approach that integrates patient needs and product knowledge with the capability to commercially manufacture these complex products consistently and reliably. While the basic principles of current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) and general process validation concepts apply, following validation concepts established for general biologics often results in challenges for CGT products due to their unique characteristics. Two of the most significant challenges are the limited number of commercial-scale batches and the inherent patient-specific variability of autologous therapies. This application note details these challenges and provides structured, practical solutions framed within the context of process validation requirements for cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) research [16] [17].

Core Challenges and Proposed Solutions

The personalized nature and biological complexity of CGTs directly impact validation strategies. The table below summarizes the primary challenges related to limited batch sizes and patient-specific variability, alongside data-informed mitigation strategies.

Table 1: Core Validation Challenges and Proposed Solutions

Challenge Category	Specific Challenge	Proposed Solution	Key Considerations
Limited Batch Sizes	Fewer than three batches may be available for Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) due to small batch sizes for gene therapies or one-batch-per-patient in autologous therapies [16].	Leverage data from clinical batches, pilot-scale batches, and applicable platform processes. Use of concurrent validation where justified by a strong benefit-risk ratio for the patient [16].	Justification for the approach must be clearly documented. Strategy should be aligned with regulatory agencies.
	The ethical and practical dilemma of using limited patient material for extended characterization versus returning cells for dosing [16].	Use of surrogate cells from healthy donors as starting materials for PPQ batches. This allows all material to be available for extended testing [16].	Must demonstrate that the drug product made from surrogate cells is representative of the product made from patient cells.
Patient-Specific Variability	Wide variability in process performance and product quality attributes due to differences in patient disease state, prior treatments, and starting material [16].	Use controlled experiments during process development to deconvolute sources of variability. Utilize data from clinical studies to understand total product variability [16].	A strong understanding of the product and manufacturing process is paramount.
	Ensuring consistent product quality and safety despite inherent variability in raw materials [1].	Implement a risk-based control strategy focused on Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). Employ robust quality control with real-time release criteria and stability studies [1].	Strategic partnerships to secure reliable sources of GMP-compliant raw materials are essential.

Experimental Protocols for Addressing Key Challenges

Protocol for Validation Using Surrogate Materials

1. Objective: To execute Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) for an autologous cell therapy process despite limited patient material availability, by validating the use of surrogate cells from healthy donors.

2. Materials:

• Surrogate Cells: Leukapheresis material from screened healthy donors.
• Culture Media & Reagents: GMP-grade cell culture media, growth factors, activation reagents, and other process intermediates.
• Analytical Equipment: Flow cytometer, cell counter, sterility testing system, and potency assay instrumentation.
• Documentation: Electronic batch record system to ensure chain of identity and custody [18].

3. Methodology: 1. Donor Qualification: Establish a protocol for qualifying healthy donors to ensure surrogate starting materials are representative and meet pre-defined acceptance criteria. 2. Parallel Processing: Process a minimum of three PPQ batches using surrogate starting materials, following the identical manufacturing process and analytical methods used for patient cells. 3. Extended Characterization: Subject the entire output of the surrogate-based drug product to the full suite of release and characterization assays, including stability testing, which would otherwise reduce the dose available for a patient. 4. Comparability Analysis: Perform a rigorous comparability exercise using data from patient-derived clinical batches. Statistically compare Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) such as: * Cell viability and identity * Vector copy number (for gene-modified therapies) * Potency measure(s) * Purity and impurity profiles 5. Documentation and Justification: Fully document all data and provide a scientific justification demonstrating that the drug product made from surrogate cells is representative of the product made from patient cells [16].

The following workflow outlines the sequential steps for this validation protocol:

Protocol for Managing Patient-to-Patient Variability

1. Objective: To characterize and control for the wide variability in autologous starting material, ensuring a consistent and robust manufacturing process.

2. Materials:

• Patient Samples: Leukapheresis material from a diverse patient population representing a range of disease states and prior treatments.
• In-process Analytics: Automated cell counters, metabolite analyzers, and other real-time monitoring tools.
• Data Analysis Software: Statistical software (e.g., JMP, R) for multivariate data analysis.

3. Methodology: 1. Controlled Studies: During process development, conduct controlled experiments where process parameters are deliberately varied to understand their individual impact on CQAs, separate from the noise of starting material variability. 2. Clinical Data Analysis: Collect and analyze data from all clinical batches to establish the normal operating range (NOR) and proven acceptable range (PAR) for both process parameters and product attributes. This defines the total variability seen in the clinic. 3. Multivariate Analysis: Use multivariate data analysis (MVDA) to identify correlations between pre-defined patient factors (e.g., lymphocyte count, prior therapy), process performance (e.g., expansion fold, metabolite levels), and final product CQAs. 4. Establish a Risk-Based Control Strategy: Based on the analysis, establish a control strategy that may include: * In-process controls (IPCs): Define critical in-process parameters and acceptable ranges. * Real-time release testing: Where possible, use rapid assays to release product based on real-time data rather than lengthy batch testing. * Adaptive processes: Implement procedures for minor process adjustments based on the quality of the incoming apheresis material [16] [1].

The logical relationship for developing this control strategy is based on a continuous cycle of knowledge gathering and implementation:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful validation requires carefully selected, qualified reagents and materials. The table below lists key solutions for developing and validating robust CGT processes.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for CGT Validation

Reagent/Material	Function in Validation	Key Considerations
Surrogate Starting Materials	Acts as a representative, readily available source of cells for extensive PPQ studies and assay validation when patient material is limited [16].	Must be thoroughly qualified to demonstrate comparability to patient-derived starting material in terms of critical quality attributes and processability.
GMP-Grade Culture Reagents	Ensures the consistency and safety of the manufacturing process during validation and commercial production. Mitigates risk introduced by raw material variability [1].	Requires vendor qualification and strict supply chain management. Testing for adventitious agents is critical.
Reference Standard	A well-characterized material used as a comparator in assays for potency, purity, and identity. Essential for demonstrating lot-to-lot consistency [19].	Should be stored in small, single-use aliquots under controlled conditions to ensure stability and prevent freeze-thaw degradation.
Quantitative Potency Assay Components	Measures the biological activity of the CGT product, which is a critical release attribute. A validated potency assay is required for licensure [16] [18].	For complex MoAs, a matrix of assays measuring different attributes (e.g., transduction efficiency, cytokine release) may be needed rather than a single assay [16].
Characterized Cell Banks	Provides a consistent and reproducible cellular substrate for analytical method development and validation, such as in cell-based potency assays [19].	Cell banks must be thoroughly characterized for identity, purity, and stability to ensure assay robustness over time.

The path to successful CGT commercialization is fraught with unique validation hurdles stemming from limited batch sizes and inherent patient-to-patient variability. A one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible. Instead, a science- and risk-based framework is essential. This involves leveraging creative strategies like the use of qualified surrogate materials, implementing concurrent validation where justified, and deeply understanding process variability through controlled studies and clinical data analysis. As the regulatory landscape for ATMPs continues to evolve, a robust, well-documented, and flexible validation approach, developed in close communication with regulatory agencies, is paramount to ensuring these transformative therapies can be delivered to patients safely, consistently, and effectively [16] [17] [18].

For researchers and drug development professionals working with cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), the process validation lifecycle provides a critical framework to ensure these complex biological products consistently meet quality standards. Process validation is defined as "the collection and evaluation of data, from the process design stage through commercial production, which establishes scientific evidence that a process is capable of consistently delivering quality products" [20]. Unlike traditional biopharmaceuticals, cell therapy ATMPs present unique challenges including inherent variability in starting materials, complex biological features, small batch sizes, and limited sample availability [21]. The three-stage lifecycle approach—Process Design, Process Qualification, and Continued Process Verification—ensures quality is built into the manufacturing process rather than merely tested in the final product [20] [22].

Stage 1: Process Design

Objectives and Strategic Importance

Process Design constitutes the research and development phase where the manufacturing process is defined and understood based on scientific principles, risk management, and experimental data. This foundational stage focuses on establishing a robust process capable of consistently producing a cell therapy ATMP that meets predefined quality criteria [20] [22]. For ATMPs, this stage is particularly crucial due to product complexity and the need to manage variability in patient-specific starting materials [23].

Key Activities and Deliverables

The core activities of Process Design involve systematically defining what constitutes product quality and understanding how process parameters influence critical quality attributes.

Table 1: Key Activities in Process Design Stage for Cell Therapy ATMPs

Activity	Description	Application to Cell Therapy ATMPs
Creation of QTPP	Defining the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP)	Summarizes product quality characteristics ensuring safety, efficacy, and stability [20]
CQA Identification	Identifying Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs)	Physical, chemical, biological properties within suitable limits to ensure product quality [20]
CPP Definition	Defining Critical Process Parameters (CPPs)	Parameters whose variability impacts CQAs and must be monitored/controlled [20]
Risk Assessments	Conducting risk assessments	Systematic evaluation of potential process failures and their impact on product quality [20]
Analytical Method Development	Establishing ATP and analytical methods	Creating an Analytical Target Profile (ATP) defining required quality criteria [21]

Experimental Protocols for Cell Therapy ATMP Characterization

Protocol 1: Establishing Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) for Autologous Cell Therapies

Objective: To identify and validate CQAs for an autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy during Process Design.

Materials and Reagents:

• Leukapheresis material from healthy donors
• Cell culture media (X-VIVO-15, Lonza)
• Recombinant human cytokines (IL-2, IL-7, IL-15)
• Retroviral or lentiviral vector encoding CAR construct
• Flow cytometry antibodies (CD3, CD4, CD8, CAR-specific reagent)
• Cell counting and viability reagents (trypan blue, acridine orange/propidium iodide)

Methodology:

• Process Simulation: Perform small-scale (100mL) manufacturing runs using leukapheresis material from at least 5 healthy donors to capture biological variability.
• Parameter Manipulation: Systematically vary key process parameters (cell seeding density, cytokine concentrations, transduction multiplicity of infection, culture duration) using Design of Experiments (DoE) approaches.
• CQA Monitoring: At each process step (activation, transduction, expansion, final formulation), assess potential CQAs including:
  • Cell viability and total cell number (automated cell counter)
  • Immunophenotype (flow cytometry for T-cell subsets)
  • Transduction efficiency (flow cytometry for CAR expression)
  • Functional potency (in vitro cytolytic assay against target cells)
  • Process impurities (residual vector, host cell proteins, cytokines)
• Data Analysis: Employ multivariate analysis to identify correlations between process parameters and product attributes. Attributes that significantly impact safety and efficacy are designated as CQAs.

Protocol 2: Defining Critical Process Parameters Through Scale-Down Model Qualification

Objective: To qualify a scale-down model for identifying CPPs in allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) expansion.

Materials and Reagents:

• Bone marrow-derived MSCs (passage 2)
• MSC-qualified fetal bovine serum or human platelet lysate
• Tissue culture flasks and multilayer cell factories
• Trypsin/EDTA detachment solution
• Glucose/lactate analyzers
• Metabolomic profiling kits

Methodology:

• Model Qualification: Establish correlation between small-scale (T-flask) and proposed manufacturing-scale (cell factory) processes by comparing key metrics (growth kinetics, metabolism, differentiation potential, immunomodulatory function).
• Parameter Ranges: Test process parameters across defined ranges (e.g., seeding density: 1,000-5,000 cells/cm²; medium exchange frequency: 2-4 days; harvest criteria: 60-90% confluence).
• CQA Impact Assessment: For each parameter combination, assess impact on predefined CQAs (identity, purity, viability, potency, freedom from contamination).
• CPP Designation: Parameters showing significant impact on CQAs within the normal operating range are designated as CPPs and carried forward to Process Qualification.

Figure 1: Process Design Stage Workflow - Systematic approach to designing a robust manufacturing process for cell therapy ATMPs

Stage 2: Process Qualification

Objectives and Components

Process Qualification (PQ) evaluates the process design to confirm it performs as intended at commercial scale and demonstrates consistent reproducibility [20] [22]. For cell therapy ATMPs, this stage consists of two key elements: (1) qualification of facility, utilities, and equipment; and (2) Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) [24]. The PPQ is particularly critical for ATMPs due to their complex nature and the need to maintain aseptic processing throughout, since terminal sterilization is typically not possible for living cell products [23].

Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) for Cell Therapy ATMPs

PPQ confirms the process design and demonstrates that the manufacturing process performs as expected under routine production conditions [24]. For autologous cell therapies, where one batch treats one patient, PPQ strategy must account for this unique batch structure while demonstrating process consistency across multiple donor materials.

Table 2: PPQ Requirements for Different Cell Therapy ATMP Types

ATMP Type	PPQ Batch Strategy	Scale	Key Focus Areas
Autologous Cell Therapies	Multiple batches from different healthy donors	Clinical/commercial scale	Donor variability, aseptic processing, chain of identity [23]
Allogeneic Cell Therapies	3+ consecutive batches at commercial scale	Commercial scale	Consistency, control of expansion, freezing uniformity [24]
Ex Vivo Gene Therapies	3+ batches with cells from multiple donors	Commercial scale	Transduction efficiency, vector copy number, viability [21]

Experimental Protocols for Process Qualification

Protocol 3: Process Performance Qualification for Autologous CAR-T Cell Therapy

Objective: To execute PPQ for an autologous CAR-T cell therapy manufacturing process.

Materials and Reagents:

• Leukapheresis material from 5-10 qualified healthy donors
• Qualified and calibrated equipment (CO2 incubators, centrifuges, biosafety cabinets)
• GMP-grade reagents and materials (culture media, cytokines, vectors, cryopreservation solutions)
• QC testing equipment (flow cytometer, PCR, sterility testing system)
• Environmental monitoring equipment

Methodology:

• Pre-PPQ Activities:
  • Ensure all equipment is properly qualified (IQ/OQ/PQ)
  • Confirm analytical method validation for release assays
  • Qualify operators through training and mock runs
  • Establish predefined acceptance criteria for all CQAs

• PPQ Execution:

  • Process leukapheresis material from each donor through the entire manufacturing process (T-cell activation, transduction, expansion, formulation, cryopreservation)
  • Perform in-process testing at all critical steps (viability, cell counts, CAR expression)
  • Conduct full release testing on final products (identity, purity, potency, safety)
  • Document all process parameters and environmental monitoring data

• Data Analysis:

  • Apply statistical process control methods to demonstrate process consistency
  • Compare all CQAs against predefined acceptance criteria
  • Demonstrate process capability using statistical metrics (Cpk, Ppk)
  • Prepare comprehensive PPQ report documenting scientific evidence that process consistently produces product meeting quality attributes

Protocol 4: Facility and Equipment Qualification for Aseptic Processing

Objective: To qualify cleanrooms and equipment for aseptic processing of cell therapy ATMPs.

Materials and Reagents:

• Particle counters
• Microbial air samplers
• Surface contact plates
• Smoke generator for airflow visualization
• Autoclave validation kits (biological indicators)
• Media fills for process simulation

Methodology:

• Facility Qualification:
  • Perform HVAC system verification (air changes, pressure differentials, HEPA filter integrity testing)
  • Conduct classification of cleanrooms (ISO 5-8) using particle counting
  • Validate cleaning and sanitization procedures
  • Implement time-based segregation strategies for multiple patient batches

• Equipment Qualification:

  • Execute Installation Qualification (IQ) confirming correct installation
  • Perform Operational Qualification (OQ) verifying performance within specified ranges
  • Conduct Performance Qualification (PQ) demonstrating consistent performance under load
  • Validate closed system processing where applicable through closure analysis

• Aseptic Process Validation:

  • Perform media fills to simulate the entire aseptic manufacturing process
  • Include worst-case scenarios and interventions
  • Process minimum of 3 successful media fills per line
  • Incubate media fills for 14 days with examination for microbial growth

Figure 2: Process Qualification Stage Workflow - Sequential activities for qualifying the manufacturing process and facility

Stage 3: Continued Process Verification

Objectives and Regulatory Framework

Continued Process Verification (CPV) involves ongoing monitoring during routine production to ensure the process remains in a state of control [20] [22]. For cell therapy ATMPs, this stage is particularly important due to the inherent variability of biological starting materials and the complexity of manufacturing processes. The CPV program should be designed to detect unplanned process drift and trigger appropriate corrective actions before product quality is impacted [22].

CPV System Design for Cell Therapy ATMPs

A well-designed CPV program for cell therapy ATMPs includes statistical monitoring of both process parameters and quality attributes, with clear response plans for out-of-trend signals.

Table 3: CPV Program Elements for Cell Therapy ATMP Manufacturing

Monitoring Category	Specific Parameters	Statistical Methods	Alert/Action Limits
Critical Process Parameters	Seeding density, culture duration, transduction parameters, filling volume	Control charts (Xbar-R, individuals), capability indices (Cpk, Ppk)	± 2σ (alert), ± 3σ (action) or justified based on process knowledge
Critical Quality Attributes	Viability, identity, potency, purity, vector copy number	Trend analysis, control charts, process capability	Based on validated ranges or specification limits
Environmental Monitoring	Viable and non-viable particles, surface contamination, personnel monitoring	Trend analysis, rate calculations	Based on cleanroom classification limits
Raw Material Attributes	Donor variability, reagent potency, media composition	Multivariate analysis, batch-to-batch comparison	Based on qualified ranges

Experimental Protocols for Continued Process Verification

Protocol 5: Establishing a Continued Process Verification Program for Allogeneic Cell Therapy

Objective: To implement a statistical process monitoring program for commercial allogeneic cell therapy production.

Materials and Reagents:

• Manufacturing batch records (electronic preferred)
• Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)
• Statistical analysis software (JMP, Minitab, or equivalent)
• Environmental monitoring data management system
• Raw material qualification data

Methodology:

• Data Collection System Design:
  • Identify data sources for each CPP and CQA
  • Establish automated data collection where possible
  • Define sampling plans and testing frequency for routine monitoring
  • Create standardized data templates for manual data entry

• Statistical Monitoring Implementation:

  • Establish control charts for all CPPs and CQAs using historical data from Process Qualification
  • Calculate process capability indices for all CQAs
  • Set alert and action limits based on statistical principles and process knowledge
  • Implement multivariate analysis for correlated parameters

• Response Plan Development:

  • Define investigation procedures for out-of-trend results
  • Establish escalation protocols based on signal severity
  • Create corrective and preventive action (CAPA) workflows
  • Define criteria for process re-qualification if significant drift is detected

• Program Maintenance:

  • Schedule periodic review of CPV data (quarterly for first year, then annually)
  • Update control limits as more data becomes available
  • Incorporate process improvements based on CPV findings
  • Document all CPV activities in annual product quality reviews

Protocol 6: Handling Process Deviations and Implementing Process Improvements

Objective: To provide a structured approach for investigating process deviations and implementing validated process improvements.

Materials and Reagents:

• Deviation investigation forms
• Quality management system documentation
• Change control forms
• Small-scale model for process changes
• Materials for comparability testing

Methodology:

• Deviation Investigation:
  • Document the deviation and immediate impact on product quality
  • Perform root cause analysis using appropriate tools (5-Whys, fishbone diagram)
  • Assess product impact and determine batch disposition
  • Implement immediate corrections to prevent recurrence

• Process Improvement Implementation:

  • Propose process changes through formal change control system
  • Evaluate change impact on product CQAs using risk assessment
  • Test changes at small-scale using qualified scale-down model
  • Perform comparability study to demonstrate equivalent product quality
  • Update regulatory filings as required based on change significance

• Knowledge Management:

  • Document lessons learned in development history report
  • Update process understanding documents based on manufacturing experience
  • Share knowledge across organization to prevent similar issues

Figure 3: Continued Process Verification Stage Workflow - Ongoing monitoring and feedback system for maintaining process control

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful process validation for cell therapy ATMPs requires carefully selected reagents and materials that meet regulatory standards and ensure process consistency.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy ATMP Process Validation

Reagent/Material	Function	Critical Quality Attributes	Application in Validation
Cell Culture Media	Provides nutrients for cell growth and expansion	Composition, osmolality, pH, endotoxin, bioburden	Supports cell expansion in all validation stages; consistency crucial for PPQ
Growth Factors/Cytokines	Directs cell differentiation, expansion, and function	Potency, purity, identity, sterility	Critical for maintaining cell phenotype; requires qualification for PPQ
Viral Vectors	Genetic modification of cells	Titer, infectivity, identity, purity, sterility, rcAAV [21]	Used in transduction process; key parameter in CQA assessment
Cell Separation Reagents	Isolation or enrichment of target cell populations	Purity, viability, recovery, functionality	Critical for initial processing; impacts downstream process efficiency
Cryopreservation Media	Long-term storage of cell products	Composition, osmolality, sterility, DMSO concentration	Ensures product stability and viability through frozen storage
Process Analytical Technology	In-line, on-line, or at-line monitoring of CPPs	Accuracy, precision, range, robustness	Enables real-time process monitoring in CPV stage [22]

The three-stage process validation lifecycle provides a science-based, risk-informed framework for ensuring consistent quality of cell therapy ATMPs. By thoroughly understanding the process during Process Design, confirming capability during Process Qualification, and maintaining control through Continued Process Verification, manufacturers can demonstrate that their processes reliably produce safe and effective therapies. For cell therapy ATMPs with their unique challenges—including variability in starting materials, complex mechanisms of action, and inability to terminal sterilize—this lifecycle approach is particularly crucial. Implementation of these principles, coupled with ongoing regulatory communication [21] [9] and knowledge management, forms the foundation for successful commercialization of these innovative therapies.

The development of cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) faces unique challenges due to biological complexity, inherent variability in starting materials, and stringent regulatory requirements. Quality by Design (QbD) presents a systematic, science-based, and risk-managed framework to address these challenges by building product quality directly into the manufacturing process rather than relying solely on end-product testing [25]. For ATMPs such as mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells, this approach is particularly valuable for managing donor-to-donor variability, process complexity, and ensuring consistent therapeutic efficacy [26] [27].

The QbD methodology, as outlined in ICH Q8(R2), begins with defining a Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) - a prospective summary of the quality characteristics of the drug product essential for ensuring the desired safety and efficacy [28]. This foundational step guides the identification of Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) and the Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) that must be controlled to consistently meet QTPP standards [25] [28]. Implementing QbD has demonstrated significant benefits in pharmaceutical manufacturing, including an approximately 40% reduction in batch failures and enhanced process robustness through real-time monitoring and adaptive control strategies [25].

Theoretical Framework: The QbD Approach for ATMPs

The Systematic QbD Workflow

The implementation of QbD follows a structured, iterative workflow comprising several interconnected stages. Figure 1 below illustrates the logical sequence and relationships between these core components, demonstrating how quality is systematically built into the product throughout development.

Figure 1: QbD Workflow for ATMP Development. This diagram illustrates the systematic, iterative process for implementing Quality by Design principles, beginning with QTPP definition and progressing through continuous improvement.

Defining the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) for Cell Therapies

The QTPP forms the foundational blueprint for all subsequent development activities, serving as a comprehensive prospectively defined summary of the drug product's quality characteristics [28]. For cell therapy ATMPs, the QTPP must be specifically tailored to address their unique biological nature and therapeutic mechanisms.

Table 1: Essential Elements of a QTPP for Cell Therapy ATMPs

QTPP Element	Description	Example for MSC Therapy
Dosage Form & Route	Physical form and administration method	Cryopreserved suspension, intravenous infusion
Dosage & Strength	Cell number and viability per dose	( 1 \times 10^8 ) viable cells, >90% viability [26]
Container Closure	Primary packaging system	Cryobag with DMSO-resistant liners
Pharmacokinetics	In vivo distribution, persistence	Homing to inflamed tissues, 2-week persistence
Pharmacodynamics	Therapeutic mechanism of action	Immunomodulation via cytokine secretion
Drug Product Quality	Purity, potency, sterility	Specific potency, negative for mycoplasma, endotoxins below threshold
Stability & Shelf Life	Storage conditions and expiration	24 months at ≤-150°C in vapor phase liquid nitrogen

Identifying Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) for Cell-Based ATMPs

CQAs are physical, chemical, biological, or microbiological properties or characteristics that must be maintained within appropriate limits, ranges, or distributions to ensure desired product quality, safety, and efficacy [28]. For cell-based therapies, CQAs span multiple categories reflecting product complexity.

Table 2: Categorization of CQAs for Cell Therapy ATMPs

Category	CQA Examples	Testing Methodology	Criticality Rationale
Identity & Phenotype	Surface marker expression (CD105+, CD73+, CD90+ for MSCs) [26]	Flow cytometry	Confirms cell type identity and purity
Potency	Differentiation potential (osteogenic, adipogenic, chondrogenic) [26]	In vitro differentiation assays	Demonstrates functional biological activity
Viability & Quantity	Cell number, viability, population doubling time [26]	Automated cell counting, metabolic assays	Ensures correct dosing and product fitness
Purity & Impurities	Process residuals (serum, cytokines, beads), host cell proteins	ELISA, mass spectrometry [27]	Reduces risk of adverse reactions
Safety	Sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin, tumorigenicity	Compendial sterility tests, LAL, in vivo assays [29]	Ensures patient safety
Genetic Stability	Karyotype, vector copy number (for genetically modified cells)	Karyotyping, qPCR	Assesses potential for malignant transformation

Linking CQAs to Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) Through Risk Assessment

The relationship between CQAs and CPPs is established through systematic risk assessment using tools such as Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) [25]. Process parameters are evaluated based on their potential impact on CQAs, with those having significant impact designated as critical.

Table 3: Example Risk Assessment Matrix for MSC Bioreactor Expansion

Process Parameter	Impacted CQA(s)	Risk Score	Criticality Determination
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)	Cell viability, metabolic profile, differentiation potential [26]	High	Critical - requires precise control
pH Level	Cell growth, viability, productivity [26]	High	Critical - requires precise control
Agitation Rate	Cell viability (shear stress), aggregate formation [26]	Medium/High	Critical - optimal range must be defined
Temperature	Cell growth rate, phenotype stability	High	Critical - standard controlled parameter
Feeding Schedule	Cell yield, metabolite accumulation	Medium	Non-critical with established ranges
Bioreactor Material	Cell adhesion, compatibility	Low	Non-critical with qualified materials

Experimental Protocols for QbD Implementation

Protocol 1: Risk Assessment to Identify CPPs

Objective: To systematically identify and rank process parameters based on their potential impact on CQAs, facilitating prioritization of experimental efforts.

Materials:

• Multidisciplinary team (process development, analytics, quality, regulatory)
• Risk assessment tool (e.g., FMEA template)
• Process flow diagram
• Preliminary knowledge from prior studies

Procedure:

• Form Expert Team: Assemble cross-functional team with knowledge of the product and process.
• Define Scope: Clearly delineate the unit operation(s) under assessment.
• List Parameters: Document all potential process parameters and material attributes for the unit operation.
• Severity Scoring: For each parameter-CQA pair, score severity (1-5) of effect should the parameter deviate.
• Occurrence Scoring: Score probability (1-5) of the parameter deviating from its set point.
• Detectability Scoring: Score ability (1-5) to detect the deviation before it impacts CQAs.
• Calculate RPN: Compute Risk Priority Number: RPN = Severity × Occurrence × Detection.
• Prioritize Parameters: Rank parameters by RPN. Parameters with high RPN and severity scores are potential CPPs.
• Document Rationale: Record scientific justification for all scores and conclusions.
• Design Experiments: Focus DoE studies on the high-priority parameters identified.

Protocol 2: Design of Experiments (DoE) to Establish Design Space

Objective: To efficiently model the relationship between CPPs and CQAs, enabling the definition of a multidimensional design space that ensures quality.

Materials:

• Statistical software (e.g., JMP, Design-Expert)
• Bioreactor system or appropriate scale-down model
• Analytical methods for CQA quantification
• Standardized cell source and culture reagents

Procedure:

• Select Factors: Choose 3-5 high-priority CPPs from the risk assessment (e.g., pH, DO, agitation rate).
• Define Ranges: Set appropriate low and high levels for each CPP based on preliminary data.
• Choose DoE Array: Select a suitable design (e.g., Response Surface Methodology - Central Composite Design) to model interactions.
• Randomize Runs: Execute experimental runs in randomized order to minimize bias.
• Monitor & Control: Precisely control and document all CPPs throughout process operation.
• Measure CQAs: Quantify all relevant CQAs at process endpoint using validated methods.
• Model Building: Use regression analysis to build mathematical models linking CPPs to CQAs.
• Statistical Validation: Check model adequacy using statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, lack-of-fit).
• Define Design Space: Identify the multidimensional region of CPPs where all CQAs meet acceptance criteria.
• Verify Design Space: Conduct verification runs at set points within the design space to confirm predictions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of QbD requires carefully selected reagents and materials to ensure process consistency and reliable analytical results.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ATMP QbD Implementation

Reagent/Material	Function	QbD Application Example	Criticality Notes
Defined Culture Media	Provides nutrients and signaling molecules for cell growth and function	DoE studies to optimize media composition as a CMA [27]	High - significant lot-to-lot variability in undefined components can impact CQAs
Recombinant Growth Factors	Directs cell differentiation and maintains phenotype	Potency assay development; defining critical concentrations [30]	High - quality and activity must be consistent between lots
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Detects surface and intracellular markers for identity and purity	Monitoring immunophenotype CQAs during process development [26] [27]	Medium - panel validation required for reproducibility
qPCR Reagents & Probes	Quantifies gene expression and vector copy number	Potency assays; safety testing for genetic stability [27]	High - assay sensitivity and specificity crucial for reliable data
Reference Standard	Serves as a benchmark for product characterization and assay calibration	Analytical comparability during process changes [21]	Critical - essential for meaningful CQA measurement over time

Process Analytical Technology (PAT) and Control Strategy

PAT Implementation for Real-Time Quality Monitoring

Process Analytical Technology (PAT) forms the backbone of QbD implementation by enabling real-time monitoring and control of CPPs and CQAs [31]. For ATMPs, PAT tools are particularly valuable given the limited sample availability and dynamic nature of living cell products.

Common PAT applications in cell therapy manufacturing include:

• In-line sensors for monitoring pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature in bioreactors [26] [31]
• Automated sampling systems coupled with flow cytometry for periodic assessment of cell phenotype and viability
• In-situ microscopy for non-invasive monitoring of cell concentration and morphology
• Metabolite analyzers (e.g., for glucose, lactate) to track cellular metabolic activity

The integration of these tools facilitates a proactive control strategy where process adjustments can be made in real-time to maintain CQAs within their desired ranges, moving beyond traditional fixed in-process controls and end-product testing [31].

Developing an Integrated Control Strategy

A comprehensive control strategy encompasses the planned set of controls derived from product and process understanding that ensures process performance and product quality [28]. For ATMPs developed under QbD principles, this strategy is multilayered.

Figure 2 below illustrates the integrated nature of a QbD-based control strategy, showing how different control elements work together to ensure final product quality.

Figure 2: Integrated Control Strategy Framework. This diagram shows how different control elements work together throughout the manufacturing process to ensure final product quality.

The control strategy typically includes:

• Input material controls - Specifications for critical raw materials and components
• Procedural controls - Standardized operating procedures (SOPs) for unit operations
• In-process controls - Monitoring and adjustment of CPPs within their design space
• Real-time release testing - Where appropriate, using PAT results in lieu of end-product testing
• Final product specification - Verification that CQAs meet acceptance criteria

Implementing QbD principles through the systematic identification and control of CQAs and CPPs provides a robust framework for developing reproducible and high-quality cell therapy ATMPs. The methodological approach outlined in this document—beginning with a clear QTPP, followed by risk-based CQA/CPP identification, design space establishment through DoE, and implementation of an integrated control strategy—enables manufacturers to manage inherent biological variability while ensuring product consistency [26] [31].

For researchers and developers, adopting this QbD approach facilitates regulatory communication and provides flexibility for continuous process improvement throughout the product lifecycle [25] [28]. As the ATMP field continues to evolve, the application of these principles will be crucial for translating innovative cell therapies from research concepts into reliable medicines for patients.

Implementing Stage-Appropriate Process Validation Strategies

The commercial success of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) hinges on the establishment of robust process control strategies that ensure consistent product quality, safety, and efficacy. For cell therapies, this presents unique challenges compared to traditional biologics, particularly due to the inherent biological variability of starting materials and the complex, often personalized nature of manufacturing [32]. A well-designed control strategy is not merely a regulatory requirement but a fundamental component that enables scalable, cost-effective manufacturing and reliable patient access to these transformative therapies [33] [34]. This document outlines the critical elements of process design and control for cell therapy commercial manufacturing, providing actionable protocols and frameworks aligned with current regulatory expectations.

Critical Process Parameters and Quality Attribute Assessment

Effective process control begins with the identification and management of Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) that influence Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). For cell therapies, CQAs are typically linked to identity, purity, viability, potency, and safety [35] [32]. The relationship between process steps and quality attributes is foundational to a Quality by Design (QbD) approach.

The table below summarizes key unit operations and their associated CPPs and CQAs in autologous and allogeneic cell therapy manufacturing.

Table 1: Key Unit Operations, Critical Process Parameters (CPPs), and Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) in Cell Therapy Manufacturing

Manufacturing Stage	Critical Process Parameters (CPPs)	Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs)
Cell Sourcing & Collection	Apheresis duration, anticoagulant volume, shipment temperature, time from collection to processing [32]	Cell viability, target cell count, purity, sterility [35] [32]
Cell Isolation	Selection method (e.g., MACS, FACS), reagent concentration, incubation time/temperature [32]	Target cell yield, purity, viability, phenotypic identity [32] [36]
Cell Activation & Expansion	Culture media formulation, cytokine/growth factor concentration, cell seeding density, gas exchange, glucose/glutamine levels, bioreactor parameters (pH, DO) [32] [37]	Fold expansion, viability, metabolic profile (e.g., mitochondrial activity), phenotype, differentiation status, genomic stability [32] [38]
Cell Engineering	Vector multiplicity of infection (MOI), transfection efficiency, gene-editing reagent concentration, incubation time [32]	Engineering efficiency (e.g., transduction efficiency, CAR expression), copy number, on-target/off-target editing effects, product functionality [35] [36]
Final Formulation & Cryopreservation	Cryoprotectant concentration (e.g., DMSO), freezing rate, storage temperature, final formulation composition [32]	Post-thaw viability, potency, identity, sterility, endotoxin levels [35] [32]

Application of a Control Strategy

A modern control strategy extends beyond final product testing to include in-process controls, raw material testing, and process monitoring [35] [34]. For autologous therapies, where each batch is unique, the strategy must demonstrate process consistency and product comparability across all manufactured batches [39]. The integration of Process Analytical Technologies (PAT) and advanced data analytics is increasingly critical for real-time monitoring and dynamic process control [40] [34].

Diagram 1: Process Control Integration in Cell Therapy Manufacturing. This workflow shows how CPP monitoring, IPC testing, and CQA verification are integrated across key manufacturing stages to ensure final product quality.

Analytical Method Development for Process Control

Robust analytical methods are the foundation for generating data that informs the process control strategy. The complexity of cell therapies often necessitates non-compendial, product-specific methods [35]. A phase-appropriate approach to analytical development is essential, with method robustness increasing as the product advances toward commercialization [36].

Protocol: Development and Validation of a Cell-Based Potency Assay

Objective: To establish a qualified, mechanism-of-action (MoA)-aligned potency assay for lot release and stability testing, in accordance with FDA and ICH Q2(R2) guidelines [35] [36].

Materials:

• Test Articles: Cell therapy drug product batches, including a reference standard.
• Biological Reagents: Target cells (positive and negative controls), culture media, cytokines/ligands.
• Equipment: Flow cytometer, plate reader, cell culture incubator, automated cell counter.
• Consumables: Multi-well plates, pipettes, sterile tubes.

Procedure:

• MoA Alignment & Assay Format Selection: Define the primary biological activity(s) responsible for the therapeutic effect. Design an assay format that quantitatively measures this activity (e.g., cytotoxicity for CAR-T cells, phagocytosis for macrophage therapies, or a matrix of assays for multimodal therapies) [35] [37].
• Assay Development & Optimization:
  • Titrate key reagents (e.g., effector-to-target cell ratio, ligand concentration) to determine optimal conditions.
  • Establish a dose-response curve for the reference standard to define the analytical range.
  • Identify and validate appropriate system suitability controls to ensure assay reliability [36].
• Assay Qualification/Validation: As the program progresses, validate the method according to ICH Q2(R2) [35]. Key parameters are summarized in the table below.

Table 2: Analytical Validation Parameters for a Cell-Based Potency Assay (based on ICH Q2(R2))

Validation Parameter	Experimental Procedure	Acceptance Criteria
Accuracy	Spiked recovery experiments using the reference standard in a relevant matrix.	Mean recovery within 70-130%.
Precision (Repeatability & Intermediate Precision)	Analyze multiple aliquots of the same sample (n≥6) on the same day (repeatability) and across different days/analysts (intermediate precision).	%CV ≤ 20-25%.
Specificity	Demonstrate the assay measures the intended activity and is unaffected by other components (e.g., measure activity against target-negative cells).	Significant signal difference (>2x) between target-positive and target-negative conditions.
Linearity & Range	Test a series of dilutions of the reference standard to cover the expected sample potency range.	R² ≥ 0.95 over the specified range.
Robustness	Deliberately introduce small, deliberate variations in key method parameters (e.g., incubation time ±15 mins, reagent age).	The method remains unaffected by small variations.

Manufacturing Capacity and Process Scalability

For autologous therapies, "scale-up" is achieved through capacity expansion by increasing the number of parallel manufacturing batches, rather than increasing batch size [39] [34]. The process control strategy must be designed to be transferable and consistent across multiple manufacturing suites or sites.

Protocol: Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) for Capacity Expansion

Objective: To demonstrate that a new or expanded manufacturing facility can consistently produce drug product that meets pre-defined CQAs and regulatory requirements [39].

Experimental Workflow:

• Facility & Equipment Qualification: Ensure the new suite/room is qualified (e.g., cleanroom classification, HVAC, utilities). Equipment must be installed, operational, and performance qualified (IQ/OQ/PQ).
• Aseptic Process Simulation (APS): Execute media fill runs to demonstrate the capability of the manufacturing process and operators to maintain asepsis. This is typically required for new rooms or suites [39].
• PPQ Batch Execution: Manufacture a minimum of three consecutive, successful PPQ batches per new manufacturing line or suite. These batches should use representative starting materials and follow the entire commercial manufacturing process.
• Testing & Data Analysis: Test PPQ batches against all release specifications. Perform comparability analysis against data from the clinical or previously validated manufacturing process to demonstrate non-inferiority in CQAs [39].

The table below compares common capacity expansion methods and their associated validation intensities.

Table 3: Validation Requirements for Different Capacity Expansion Methods in Autologous Cell Therapy

Expansion Method	Implementation Time	Capacity Increase	Key Validation Activities
Increase Existing Suite Capacity (e.g., process automation) [39] [34]	Short	Low	PPQ, Change Being Effected (CBE) filing; typically no comparability study [39].
Add Rooms to an Existing Site [39]	Medium	Medium	Aseptic Process Simulation (APS), PPQ, CBE or Prior Approval Supplement (PAS) [39].
Add an Internal Site (new facility) [39]	Long	High	APS, PPQ, Comparability Study, PAS, Pre-Approval Inspection (PAI) [39].
Add an External CMO [39]	Long	High	APS, PPQ, Comparability Study, PAS, PAI, extensive tech transfer and quality agreements [39].

Diagram 2: Decision Workflow for Manufacturing Capacity Expansion. This chart outlines the strategic decision points and corresponding validation activities for different capacity expansion pathways.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies

Successful implementation of a process control strategy relies on a suite of specialized reagents and technologies. The following table details key solutions for cell therapy process development and control.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy Process Control

Reagent / Technology	Function in Process Control
Magnetic-Activated Cell Sorting (MACS) Reagents	Isolation of specific cell populations (e.g., T-cells, CD34+ cells) from apheresis material to ensure a consistent and pure starting population for manufacturing [32].
Cell Culture Media & Supplements	Formulated, xeno-free media and cytokines (e.g., IL-2, IL-7, IL-15) provide a defined environment for cell activation and expansion, critical for controlling cell growth, phenotype, and functionality [32].
Viral Vectors / Gene-Editing Reagents	Delivery of genetic material (e.g., CAR transgene) for cell engineering. Consistency in titer, purity, and functionality is a CPP for achieving uniform engineering efficiency [32] [39].
Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels	Multi-parameter analysis for in-process and final product testing. Used to monitor identity, purity, transduction efficiency, and other CQAs throughout the process [35] [40].
Cell-Based Functional Assay Kits	Pre-configured kits (e.g., for cytotoxicity, cytokine secretion) provide tools for developing and executing MoA-aligned potency assays, a cornerstone of the quality control strategy [35] [37].
Cryopreservation Media	Formulations with cryoprotectants like DMSO ensure post-thaw viability and functionality of the final drug product, a critical attribute for patient dosing [32].

Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) represents a critical stage in the process validation lifecycle, intended to demonstrate that a manufacturing process is capable of consistently delivering quality product [41]. For Cell Therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), particularly autologous therapies, traditional PPQ approaches requiring numerous batches present significant practical challenges due to their inherently limited batch nature [39] [42]. These therapies modify a patient's own cells to create individualized treatments, resulting in single-patient batches that cannot be scaled using conventional approaches [39]. This application note outlines science- and risk-based strategies for designing effective PPQ protocols with limited batches while maintaining regulatory compliance and ensuring product quality and patient safety.

Framework for Limited Batch PPQ Strategies

Foundation of Science- and Risk-Based Approaches

Regulatory guidance no longer prescribes a fixed number of PPQ batches, instead emphasizing that "each manufacturer should judge whether it has gained sufficient understanding to provide a high degree of assurance in its manufacturing process" [43]. This flexibility enables the implementation of alternative approaches tailored to cell therapy ATMPs:

• Risk-Based Approach: Uses comprehensive risk analysis to assess residual process variation risk after applying existing process knowledge and process design data. Techniques such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) help identify and prioritize significant process risks [43].
• Statistical/Prior Knowledge Approach: Relies on calculations targeting capability, tolerance intervals, or overall reliability of meeting Critical Quality Attributes (CQA) acceptance criteria. This requires sufficient historical data from development, engineering, or pre-PPQ runs to build statistical confidence for predicting PPQ batch behavior [43].
• Hybrid Approach: Combines elements of both risk-based and statistical methodologies, potentially incorporating bracketing and matrix strategies for complex processes with multiple equipment trains or dosage forms [43].

Table 1: Comparison of PPQ Strategy Approaches for Limited Batch Scenarios

Approach	Methodology	Data Requirements	Recommended Scenario	Potential Batch Number
Risk-Based	FMEA, risk assessment of process parameters	Moderate process understanding, risk assessment documentation	Processes with 1-2 significant variation sources	2-4 batches
Statistical	Tolerance intervals, capability analysis, reliability calculations	Extensive historical data from development/engineering runs	Processes with substantial pre-existing data	As low as 2 batches with high confidence
Hybrid	Combines risk assessment with statistical elements	Moderate to high process characterization data	Complex processes with multiple interactive factors	3-8 batches depending on complexity

Implementation Protocols for Limited Batch PPQ

Protocol 1: Enhanced Process Understanding and Characterization

Objective: Compensate for limited batch numbers through enhanced process characterization during earlier development stages.

Methodology:

• Process Parameter Classification: Identify and categorize process parameters as critical (CPP) or non-critical based on process development studies and risk assessments [41].
• Design of Experiments (DOE): Conduct structured DOEs during process characterization to understand parameter interactions and establish Proven Acceptable Ranges (PARs) [43].
• Scale-Down Model Qualification: Develop and qualify representative scale-down models to enable extensive parameter testing without full-scale batches [41].
• Historical Data Analysis: Collect and analyze all available development data to build comprehensive process knowledge.

Acceptance Criteria: Process parameters maintained within predefined acceptable ranges; CQAs consistently met; successful execution of scale-down model qualification.

Protocol 2: Comprehensive Control Strategy Implementation

Objective: Implement a multi-layered control strategy that provides quality assurance beyond traditional PPQ batch success alone.

Methodology:

• In-Process Controls (IPC): Define and validate IPC tests with associated validation acceptance criteria and/or action limits [41].
• Real-Time Release Testing: Implement validated analytical methods capable of confirming product quality during manufacturing.
• Raw Material Controls: Establish rigorous raw material and starting material qualification programs [42].
• Process Analytical Technology (PAT): Incorporate real-time monitoring of critical process parameters where feasible.

Acceptance Criteria: All IPC tests within validation acceptance criteria; successful real-time release testing; raw materials meeting qualification specifications.

Practical Implementation Framework

PPQ Prerequisites and Readiness Assessment

Before initiating limited batch PPQ studies, specific prerequisites must be fulfilled to ensure successful execution [41]:

• Approved control strategy documenting parameter classifications and acceptable ranges
• Validated analytical methods for in-process, release, and stability testing
• Qualified equipment and facilities including utilities
• Established target product profile
• Qualified cell and plasmid banks (where applicable)
• Trained personnel using approved procedures
• Completed risk assessment evaluating unit operations and process inputs

Table 2: PPQ Prerequisite Checklist for Limited Batch Scenarios

Prerequisite Category	Specific Requirements	Verification Method
Process Understanding	CPPs and CMAs identified and reviewed; PARs established	Approved control strategy report; process characterization study reports
Analytical Methods	Validated methods for release and in-process testing; phase-appropriate potency assay	Method validation reports; stability testing data
Facility/Equipment	Qualified manufacturing equipment; validated cleanrooms	Qualification/validation documentation; environmental monitoring data
Materials	Qualified raw materials; GMP-grade reagents; certified cell banks	Certificate of analysis; supplier qualifications; bank characterization reports
Personnel/Documentation	Trained staff; approved batch records; quality agreements	Training records; approved SOPs; quality agreements

Experimental Design and Sampling Strategy

For limited batch scenarios, enhanced sampling strategies compensate for reduced batch numbers:

Sampling Protocol:

• Enhanced In-Process Sampling: Collect samples at all critical manufacturing steps, even when not part of routine release criteria [41].
• Small Volume Analytical Methods: Utilize analytical methods requiring minimal sample volume to conserve limited product [41].
• Surrogate Materials: Employ qualified surrogate materials for validation activities (e.g., mixing validation) with documented justification and risk assessment [41].
• Retained Samples: Systematically retain samples from all key process lots for potential analytical bridging studies [21].

Analytical Method Considerations for Limited Batches

Method Validation Challenges and Solutions

Analytical method validation for ATMPs faces unique challenges including inherent product heterogeneity, limited sample availability, and lack of reference standards [21]. These challenges are exacerbated in limited batch scenarios:

• Phase-Appropriate Validation: Implement validation activities aligned with product development stage, focusing on method characteristics most relevant to current decision-making [21].
• Leverage Platform Knowledge: Utilize data from similar molecules (e.g., other vector serotypes in viral gene therapy) to support method development and validation [21].
• Statistical Handling of Variability: Establish wider, scientifically justified acceptance criteria that account for inherent product and analytical variability [43].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ATMP PPQ Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in PPQ	Quality Requirements	Considerations for Limited Batch Scenarios
GMP-Grade Viral Vectors	Gene delivery in modified cell therapies	Certificate of analysis; viral safety testing; titer certification	Small-scale aliquots; qualified sub-lotting to conserve supply
Cell Banks	Source of consistent cellular material	Fully characterized MCB/WCB; mycoplasma-free; sterility testing	Extended characterization to maximize utility; careful inventory management
Ancillary Materials	Cell culture, expansion, differentiation	USP <1043> compliance; animal-origin free where possible	Rigorous qualification to prevent batch failures; multi-sourcing where feasible
Reference Standards	Analytical method calibration	Well-characterized; representative of manufacturing process	Interim references with bridging strategies; careful storage conditions
Critical Reagents	Specific process steps (e.g., cytokines, growth factors)	Bioburden testing; identity/potency verification	Extended stability studies; small package sizes

Process Validation Acceptance Criteria Framework

Establishing appropriate acceptance criteria is essential for meaningful limited batch PPQ studies [41]:

• Critical Process Parameters (CPPs): Must be maintained within their Proven Acceptable Ranges (PARs)
• Critical Material Attributes (CMAs): Must meet predefined specification limits
• In-Process Controls (IPCs): Must meet validation acceptance criteria or action limits
• Product Release Specifications: All CQAs must meet established acceptance criteria

Regulatory and Compliance Considerations

Engaging with Regulatory Authorities

Early and continued dialogue with regulatory agencies is crucial for limited batch PPQ approaches [44] [21]. Sponsors should:

• Discuss Analytical Strategies: Present draft analytical strategies during early development phases [21].
• Justify Approach: Provide scientific justification for limited batch strategies based on product-specific constraints [43].
• Leverage Expedited Programs: Utilize regulatory mechanisms such as the RMAT (Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy) designation, which acknowledges the unique challenges of regenerative medicine products [44].

Documentation and Comparability

Comprehensive documentation is essential when employing limited batch PPQ strategies:

• Process Comparability Protocols: Establish predefined protocols for assessing process changes without full re-validation [39].
• Deviation Management: Implement robust investigation procedures for any data outside predefined acceptable ranges [41].
• Continued Process Verification: Plan for ongoing process monitoring post-PPQ to demonstrate maintained state of control [41].

For cell therapy ATMPs, limited batch PPQ strategies represent both a practical necessity and a scientifically sound approach when properly implemented. By leveraging enhanced process understanding, comprehensive risk assessment, and strategic analytical methods, developers can design effective PPQ protocols that accommodate the unique constraints of autologous therapies and other limited batch scenarios while providing sufficient assurance of process consistency and product quality. The framework presented in this application note enables researchers and drug development professionals to address these challenges while maintaining regulatory compliance and, most importantly, ensuring the safety and efficacy of these groundbreaking therapies.

Autologous cell therapies represent a paradigm shift in personalized medicine, where a patient's own cells are harvested, engineered, and reintroduced as a therapeutic agent. This individualized approach introduces profound validation challenges not encountered in conventional pharmaceutical manufacturing. The core challenge lies in establishing robust, standardized validation frameworks that must accommodate two intrinsic constraints: the extremely limited availability of each patient's cellular starting material and the inherent biological variability between patients [45].

These constraints impact every stage of the product lifecycle, from process development and analytical testing to final product release. This Application Note details a systematic, risk-based framework for validating autologous cell therapies, providing researchers with specific protocols and strategies to ensure product safety, identity, quality, purity, and potency despite these unique challenges [35].

Core Challenges in Autologous Therapy Validation

The validation of autologous therapies is fundamentally different from allogeneic or traditional biopharmaceutical processes. The primary challenges stem from the nature of the starting material itself.

• Limited Material Availability: Each manufacturing batch is derived from a single patient and yields a very small quantity of drug product, leaving no room for error or repeated testing. Conventional validation approaches that rely on large-scale, repeated batch runs are not feasible [35].
• Wide Patient Variability: Cellular raw materials exhibit significant patient-to-patient variability influenced by disease severity, prior treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation), age, and underlying health conditions [45]. This biological diversity can lead to different growth kinetics, genetic modification efficiency, and final product characteristics, making process standardization exceptionally difficult [45].

Table 1: Key Challenges and Implications for Autologous Therapy Validation

Challenge	Impact on Validation	Consequence
Single-Batch Starting Material	Precludes traditional process validation with numerous batches. Requires a "batch-by-batch" validation paradigm.	High cost of failure; a single failed batch denies treatment to a patient [45].
Variable Input Material Quality	Process performance and product CQAs are not consistent across all patient samples.	Risk of batch failure or subpotent product if process is not flexible enough to handle variability.
Urgent Medical Need & Short Shelf-Life	Release testing, including potency, must be completed rapidly.	Necessitates rapid, often shortened, analytical methods that can provide a timely "green light" for product release [46].

A Framework for a Risk-Based Validation Strategy

A successful validation strategy for autologous therapies must be proactive, risk-based, and integrated throughout development. The framework below outlines a systematic approach.

Figure 1: A risk-based framework for validating autologous cell therapies, integrating key strategies to manage variability and limited material.

Defining Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) with Patient Variability in Mind

The first step is to define CQAs—physical, chemical, biological, or microbiological properties that must be within an appropriate limit, range, or distribution to ensure desired product quality. For autologous therapies, CQAs must be carefully selected to reflect the mechanism of action while being achievable across a heterogeneous patient population [46]. Examples include:

• Identity: Percentage of target cell population (e.g., CD3+ T cells).
• Purity: Levels of residual contaminants or non-target cells.
• Potency: The specific biological activity based on the product's mechanism of action (e.g., cytokine release, target cell killing) [46].
• Viability: Percentage of live cells in the final product.

Managing Raw Material Variability

Since the patient's cells are the primary raw material, controlling their variability is crucial. Strategies include:

• Stringent Patient Eligibility Criteria: Defining inclusion/exclusion criteria based on factors known to impact cell quality (e.g., absolute lymphocyte count, time since last chemotherapy) [45].
• Standardizing Collection & Logistics: Working with apheresis centers to standardize collection devices, protocols, and operator training. Controlling transport conditions and time from apheresis to manufacturing is critical [45].
• Incorporating Flexibility into Manufacturing: Designing processes with built-in flexibility, such as adjustable culture durations or feeding schedules, to accommodate variable cell growth kinetics [45].

The Central Role of Potency Assay Validation

Potency is the "critical quality attribute that links a cell therapy’s lab measurements to its expected clinical benefit" [46]. A robust, quantitative potency assay is non-negotiable for regulatory approval and for ensuring consistent clinical efficacy.

• Mechanism of Action (MoA) Alignment: The potency assay must be based on the product's known or proposed MoA. For a CAR-T product, this could be a co-culture assay measuring interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release upon engagement with target cells [46].
• Early Development: Initiating potency assay development in the preclinical phase is essential. This allows for the use of the assay to guide process optimization and provides ample time for troubleshooting and validation [46].
• Managing Material Constraints for Assay Development: A significant hurdle is the lack of consistent, regulatory-ready reference materials early in development. Using custom cell mimics (e.g., TruCytes) that replicate key phenotypic and functional characteristics of target cells can enable earlier and more robust assay development before consistent clinical-grade material is available [46].

Table 2: Key Phases of Potency Assay Development and Validation

Development Phase	Primary Assay Goal	Key Activities & Considerations
Preclinical / Phase 1	Assay Selection & Qualification	Identify and optimize a quantitative, MoA-relevant assay. Use custom cell mimics if primary patient material is variable or scarce. Demonstrate suitability (precision, specificity) [46] [35].
Phase 2	Assay Qualification	Refine the assay. Generate data on accuracy, precision, and linearity. Use the assay to support process comparability studies [35].
Phase 3 / Commercial	Full Assay Validation	Perform full validation per ICH Q2(R2), establishing range, accuracy, precision, specificity, and robustness. The assay must be suitable for lot release [35].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: A Multi-Faceted Potency Assay for CAR-T Cell Products

This protocol outlines a cell-based co-culture assay to measure the potency of CAR-T cells by quantifying their ability to activate, secrete cytokines, and lyse target cells, providing a comprehensive functional profile.

1. Principle This assay quantifies the biological activity of CAR-T cells by co-culturing them with target cells expressing the cognate antigen. The functional response is measured through multiple MoA-relevant endpoints: IFN-γ secretion (activation), cytolytic activity (killing), and proliferation (expansion), providing a multi-parametric assessment of potency [46].

2. Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for CAR-T Potency Assay

Item	Function / Description	Example & Justification
CAR-T Effector Cells	The product being tested.	Use the CAR-T drug product at the prescribed concentration. If material is limited, a smaller-scale test can be validated.
Target Cells	Cells presenting the target antigen for CAR engagement.	Engineered cell lines stably expressing the target antigen (e.g., NALM-6 for CD19). Custom cell mimics (e.g., TruCytes) provide a consistent, renewable source for improved assay robustness [46].
Cell Culture Medium	Supports cell viability and function during co-culture.	RPMI-1640 or similar, supplemented with FBS and L-glutamine.
IFN-γ ELISA Kit	Quantifies secreted IFN-γ in supernatant.	A validated, commercially available kit with high sensitivity and specificity.
Flow Cytometry Reagents	For quantifying cytolytic activity and proliferation.	Antibodies for target cell identification (e.g., anti-CD19), viability dye (e.g., 7-AAD), and cell proliferation dye (e.g., CFSE).

3. Step-by-Step Procedure

Day 0: Assay Setup

• Prepare Effector and Target Cells: Thaw and rest CAR-T cells if necessary. Harvest and count target cells.
• Label Target Cells for Cytotoxicity: Resuspend target cells in PBS containing a cell proliferation dye (e.g., 5 µM CFSE) and incubate for 20 minutes at 37°C. Stop the reaction with complete medium and wash cells twice.
• Plate Co-culture: In a 96-well U-bottom plate, plate the CFSE-labeled target cells at a density of 1 x 10⁴ cells per well. Add CAR-T effector cells to achieve the desired Effector:Target (E:T) ratios (e.g., 1:1, 5:1, 10:1). Include the following controls:
  • Target cells alone (to measure spontaneous death).
  • Target cells + lysis buffer (to measure maximum death).
  • CAR-T cells alone (to measure background activation).

Day 1-3: Co-culture and Harvest

• Incubate: Incubate the plate for 24-48 hours at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ incubator.
• Collect Supernatant for Cytokine Analysis: At 24 hours, carefully remove 100 µL of supernatant from each well without disturbing the cells. Transfer to a new plate and store at -20°C until analysis by ELISA for IFN-γ.
• Harvest Cells for Flow Cytometry: At 48 hours, harvest all cells from the co-culture wells. Wash once with FACS buffer (PBS + 2% FBS).
• Stain for Viability: Resuspend the cell pellet in FACS buffer containing a viability dye (e.g., 7-AAD) and incubate for 10-15 minutes in the dark.
• Acquire Data on Flow Cytometer: Analyze samples on a flow cytometer. Use CFSE to identify target cells and 7-AAD to distinguish live/dead cells within that population.

4. Data Analysis

• Cytolytic Activity: Calculate specific lysis using the formula: % Specific Lysis = [(% Dead in Test - % Spontaneous Dead) / (100 - % Spontaneous Dead)] * 100 Plot % Specific Lysis vs. E:T ratio.
• IFN-γ Secretion: Generate a standard curve from the ELISA kit and interpolate the concentration of IFN-γ in each sample. Report as pg/mL.
• Proliferation (Optional): Analyze the CFSE dilution profile of the CAR-T cells to assess proliferation.

5. Validation Parameters For a lot-release potency assay, this method must be validated for the following parameters as per ICH Q2(R2) [19] [35]:

• Precision: Repeatability (intra-assay) and intermediate precision (inter-assay, inter-operator).
• Linearity & Range: Demonstrate the assay is linear and accurate across the specified range (e.g., 50%-150% of a reference standard) [19].
• Specificity: Confirm the response is due to antigen-specific CAR engagement.
• Robustness: Determine the assay's reliability when small, deliberate changes are made to operational parameters.

Figure 2: Detailed workflow for a multi-parametric CAR-T cell potency assay, quantifying activation, killing, and proliferation.

Protocol: Process Validation with a Matrixed Approach

Given the impossibility of manufacturing numerous batches from one patient, process validation for autologous therapies relies on a "matrixed" approach that uses data from multiple patients and development phases to demonstrate process robustness and reproducibility.

1. Principle Leverage data from clinical trials and process development studies to demonstrate that the manufacturing process consistently produces a product that meets all pre-defined CQAs, despite patient-to-patient variability in the starting material [45].

2. Methodology

• Define Process Ranges: During development, intentionally challenge the process by using starting materials with a wide range of qualities (e.g., low/medium/high T-cell counts, different viabilities) to establish acceptable operating ranges for Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) like culture duration, cytokine concentration, and cell seeding density [45].
• Execute a Matrixed Validation Plan: In lieu of three consecutive validation batches, design a study that includes:
  • Multiple Patient Samples: Use cells from at least 3-5 donors representing expected variability (e.g., from healthy donors and patients with varying disease states).
  • Multiple Lots of Critical Reagents: Use different lots of key reagents (e.g., culture media, activation beads) to demonstrate the process is robust to reagent variability.
  • Multiple Operators: Include different trained operators to qualify the process.
• Measure Success: The process is considered validated if a high percentage of runs (e.g., >90%) across this matrixed design successfully meet all pre-defined CQAs and release specifications.

Regulatory Considerations and Future Directions

Regulatory agencies recognize the unique challenges of autologous therapies and have provided updated guidance. The FDA's 2025 draft guidances emphasize flexible and efficient development pathways [47] [8].

• Expedited Programs: The RMAT (Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy) designation can accelerate development, but requires a focus on CMC readiness and early demonstration of product comparability as processes change [8].
• Innovative Trial Designs: For small patient populations, FDA encourages adaptive, Bayesian, and externally controlled trial designs to generate robust evidence of effectiveness [8].
• Post-Approval Monitoring: There is a growing emphasis on using real-world evidence to capture long-term safety and efficacy data after initial approval [47].

Emerging technologies are poised to further transform validation strategies:

• Automation & AI: Closed, automated systems reduce operational variability and contamination risk [1]. AI and machine learning can analyze complex manufacturing data to predict batch success and optimize processes in real-time [47] [48].
• Decentralized Manufacturing: Moving manufacturing closer to the patient (point-of-care) can reduce logistics complexity and turnaround time, but requires novel validation approaches for distributed manufacturing networks [48].

Validating autologous cell therapies demands a fundamental shift from traditional process validation. Success hinges on a strategy that embraces, rather than fights, the inherent variability of the starting material. By implementing a risk-based framework—characterized by early CQA definition, MoA-relevant potency assays, flexible process design, and a matrixed approach to validation—developers can build a robust and regulatory-compliant case for their product's quality, safety, and efficacy. As the field evolves, the integration of automation, AI, and decentralized models will further enhance the ability to deliver these life-saving personalized therapies consistently and at scale.

In the development and validation of manufacturing processes for Cell Therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), the use of surrogate materials is often a practical necessity. This is particularly true for autologous therapies, where the limited availability of a patient's own starting material constrains extensive process development and validation work [35]. A surrogate material is a representative model system used in place of patient-derived cells during development activities. These surrogates must be carefully selected and characterized to accurately predict the performance and outcomes of the manufacturing process when using actual patient cells.

The regulatory acceptance of data generated using surrogate materials hinges on a rigorous demonstration of their representativeness to patient cells [14]. Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) acknowledge the utility of surrogate approaches, especially during early-phase development or when a shortage in starting material exists [14]. This document outlines detailed protocols and analytical frameworks for establishing this critical representativeness, providing a scientific foundation for the use of surrogates in ATMP process validation.

Defining Surrogate Materials and Their Application

Types and Purposes of Surrogate Materials

In cell therapy CMC (Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls) development, surrogate materials can be categorized based on their source and intended use. The selection of an appropriate surrogate type is dictated by the specific stage of process development and the critical process parameter (CPP) being evaluated.

• Healthy Donor-Derived Cells: Sourced from eligible healthy donors, these are commonly used as surrogates for patient-derived cells in allogeneic therapy development and for establishing initial process parameters for autologous therapies. They provide a more readily available and consistent cell source for feasibility studies.
• Cell Lines: Established, well-characterized immortalized cell lines (e.g., Jurkat T-cells for immunotherapies) are valuable for initial process development, especially for high-risk studies or equipment qualification. Their genetic and phenotypic stability allows for highly reproducible system performance assessments.
• Cryopreserved Apheresis Material: For processes where fresh patient material is logistically challenging, cryopreserved material from donors can serve as a practical surrogate. Its use requires validation that the cryopreservation and thaw process does not significantly alter the critical quality attributes (CQAs) relevant to the manufacturing step under investigation.

Regulatory Context for Surrogate Use

Regulatory agencies permit the use of surrogate materials within a structured and justified framework. FDA regulations allow for the use of surrogates in process validation, provided their use is scientifically justified [14]. The EMA's position is that surrogate approaches are allowed primarily in cases of a documented shortage of starting material [14]. The overarching principle is that any data generated with a surrogate must be verified and supplemented with data from patient-derived materials as the product advances toward licensure. The following table summarizes the key regulatory considerations for employing surrogate strategies.

Table 1: Regulatory Considerations for Surrogate Material Use

Regulatory Aspect	FDA Position	EMA Position
General Allowance	Allowed, but must be justified [14]	Allowed in case of a shortage in starting material [14]
Platform Data in Process Validation	Acceptable where same/similar manufacturing steps are used [14]	Acceptable where same/similar manufacturing steps are used [14]
Key Expectation	Demonstration of comparability and representativeness to patient cells is critical for regulatory acceptance.

Protocol for Establishing Surrogate Representativeness

A systematic, multi-stage protocol is essential to generate conclusive evidence of surrogate representativeness. The workflow progresses from strategic planning and characterization to experimental side-by-side testing and ongoing verification.

Diagram 1: Surrogate Representativeness Workflow

Stage 1: Strategic Planning and Critical Quality Attribute (CQA) Definition

Objective: To identify and prioritize the product CQAs most critical for demonstrating surrogate representativeness for a specific manufacturing process.

• Process Mapping: Create a detailed map of the entire manufacturing process, identifying all unit operations (e.g., cell selection, activation, genetic modification, expansion, formulation).
• Risk Assessment: Perform a risk analysis to identify which unit operations are most likely to be influenced by variations in the input material.
• CQA Selection: Based on the risk assessment and product knowledge, define a panel of CQAs that will serve as the primary endpoints for comparability. These should be linked to the mechanism of action and product safety.

Stage 2: Comprehensive Characterization of Surrogate and Patient Cells

Objective: To perform a head-to-head analytical comparison of the surrogate material and a representative set of patient-derived cells to establish a baseline profile.

Materials:

• Surrogate material (e.g., healthy donor apheresis, cell line)
• Patient-derived apheresis material (N ≥ 5 different donors is recommended to capture biological variability)
• Analytical instruments for characterization (see Section 5: The Scientist's Toolkit)

Experimental Methodology:

• Identity and Purity: Utilize flow cytometry with a panel of antibodies targeting relevant surface markers (e.g., CD3, CD4, CD8, CD14, CD19, CD56) to determine the identity and purity of the cell populations. Assess viability using a dye exclusion method (e.g., Trypan Blue) or fluorescent viability dyes.
• Potency Assay Development: Develop a cell-based functional assay that measures a relevant biological activity linked to the product's mechanism of action. For a CAR-T cell, this could be cytokine release (e.g., IFN-γ, IL-2) upon exposure to target antigen-positive cells, or direct cytotoxicity against target cells measured in a co-culture assay.
• Cell Fitness and Proliferation: Evaluate the metabolic activity and proliferative potential of the cells using standardized assays (e.g., ATP-based metabolic assays, CFSE dilution assays).
• Genotypic Stability (if applicable): For genetically modified surrogates, confirm the stability and correct integration of the transgene using techniques like PCR, qPCR, or next-generation sequencing.

Data Analysis: The data collected from this characterization should be summarized in a comprehensive table for direct comparison.

Table 2: Comparative Characterization of Surrogate vs. Patient Cells

Quality Attribute	Analytical Method	Surrogate Material Result (Mean ± SD)	Patient Cells Result (Mean ± SD, n=5)	Acceptance Criterion for Representativeness
Viability (%)	Trypan Blue Exclusion	98.5 ± 0.5	97.8 ± 1.2	≥ 90% and within 3% of patient cells
CD3+ T-cell Purity (%)	Flow Cytometry	95.2 ± 2.1	93.5 ± 4.5	≥ 80% and not statistically different
CD4/CD8 Ratio	Flow Cytometry	1.8 ± 0.3	2.0 ± 0.6	Within pre-defined range (e.g., 1.5 - 2.5)
Vector Copy Number	ddPCR	2.1 ± 0.2	1.9 ± 0.4	Not statistically different (p > 0.05)
IFN-γ Release (pg/mL)	ELISA (after antigen stimulation)	4500 ± 500	4200 ± 800	Not statistically different and demonstrates equivalent dose-response

Stage 3: Side-by-Side Process Performance Evaluation

Objective: To demonstrate that the surrogate material behaves similarly to patient cells when subjected to the actual manufacturing process.

Experimental Methodology:

• Parallel Manufacturing Runs: Execute the entire manufacturing process, or a critical unit operation thereof, in parallel using the surrogate material and multiple batches of patient-derived cells (N ≥ 3).
• In-Process Monitoring: Collect samples at defined in-process points (e.g., post-activation, post-transduction, end-of-culture) for analysis.
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): Measure and record KPIs such as:
  • Cell expansion fold (from seeding to harvest)
  • Genetic modification efficiency (e.g., transduction efficiency %)
  • Metabolic profile (e.g., glucose consumption rate, lactate production)
  • Final product CQAs (as defined in Table 2)

Data Analysis and Comparability Assessment:

• Statistical Analysis: Employ descriptive statistics and comparative tests (e.g., Student's t-test, ANOVA) to evaluate differences in KPIs and CQAs between the surrogate-derived and patient-derived products.
• Equivalence Testing: Define an equivalence margin (e.g., ±20%) for critical parameters a priori. Use statistical equivalence testing (e.g., TOST - Two One-Sided T-tests) to demonstrate that the performance of the surrogate is equivalent to that of patient cells within the accepted margin.
• Acceptance Criteria: The process is deemed comparable if the majority of pre-defined CQAs and KPIs for the surrogate fall within the historical data range or statistical equivalence margins established for patient cell manufacturing.

Integrating Surrogates into Process Validation

Once surrogate representativeness is established, the surrogate can be deployed in formal process validation studies to define the operating ranges of CPPs. The following decision tree outlines the strategy for integrating surrogate data into a regulatory submission.

Diagram 2: Surrogate Use in Validation Strategy

For the validation of certain high-risk or critical process steps, a hybrid approach is recommended. This involves using the surrogate for initial range-finding and worst-case condition studies, followed by verification runs using actual patient-derived materials at a smaller scale to confirm the predictions made by the surrogate model. This strategy maximizes learning while maintaining a direct link to the clinical product.

The Scientist's Toolkit

A robust analytical toolkit is fundamental to executing the protocols described herein. The following table lists essential reagents and instruments.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Surrogate Characterization

Reagent / Instrument	Function / Application	Key Consideration
Flow Cytometer	Multi-parameter analysis of cell surface and intracellular markers for identity and purity.	Panels should be validated for the specific cell type. Use of standardized antibody cocktails is recommended.
qPCR / ddPCR System	Quantitative analysis of transgene copy number, viral vector titers, and residual DNA.	Requires validated primers/probes and reference standards. Digital PCR offers absolute quantification without a standard curve.
Cell Counter & Analyzer	Automated cell counting and viability assessment (e.g., via Trypan Blue or fluorescent dye exclusion).	Essential for monitoring cell growth and concentration during process performance studies.
Luminescence Plate Reader	Detection of outputs from cell-based assays (e.g., luminescence for ATP/viability, fluorescence).	Used for high-throughput functional assays and metabolic readouts.
ELISA Kits	Quantification of specific proteins (e.g., cytokines like IFN-γ, IL-2) in cell culture supernatants.	A key tool for potency assay development. Kits must be qualified for the matrix (cell culture media).
Cell Culture Media & Supplements	Formulated media, serum, cytokines (e.g., IL-2), and growth factors for cell expansion and maintenance.	Raw materials must be qualified and sourced consistently, as variations can significantly impact process performance.
Viral Vectors	Lentiviral or retroviral vectors for genetic modification of cells.	The quality (titer, infectivity, purity) of the vector is a critical raw material and must be tightly controlled [35].

The use of surrogate materials is an indispensable strategy in the development and validation of robust manufacturing processes for cell therapy ATMPs. Its success is contingent upon a rigorous, data-driven demonstration of representativeness, following a structured protocol that encompasses comprehensive analytical characterization and side-by-side process performance evaluation. By adhering to the detailed application notes and protocols outlined in this document, researchers and drug development professionals can build a scientifically sound case for the use of surrogates, thereby accelerating process development while maintaining compliance with evolving regulatory expectations from the FDA and EMA [35] [14]. This approach ultimately helps in bringing transformative therapies to patients in a more efficient and reliable manner.

Leveraging Platform and Clinical Batch Data to Support Commercial Validation

The transition from clinical-scale production to commercially viable manufacturing represents a critical juncture in the development of Cell Therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). Conventional process validation, which relies primarily on three consecutive commercial-scale batches, often presents prohibitive challenges for these complex, patient-specific therapies due to their limited batch sizes, inherent product variability, and high manufacturing costs [1] [35]. This application note details a strategic framework for leveraging existing platform process data and clinical batch data to construct a robust, evidence-based package for commercial process validation. This approach aligns with regulatory encouragement for innovative strategies and risk-based principles, potentially accelerating market entry for transformative cell therapies while ensuring patient safety and product quality [14].

Regulatory and Strategic Framework

Regulatory Foundations for Leveraging Existing Data

Global regulatory bodies recognize the unique challenges in validating cell therapy processes and provide guidance that supports the use of historical and platform data. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued draft guidance on "Manufacturing Changes and Comparability for Human Cellular and Gene Therapy Products" (July 2023), which reflects current Agency thinking on leveraging data to demonstrate process understanding and control [6] [14]. Similarly, a new multidisciplinary EU guideline effective July 2025 addresses demonstrating comparability for CGTs undergoing clinical development [14]. While the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Q5E guideline on comparability does not currently encompass CGTs, a new annex is in development to address these product-specific challenges [14].

The foundational principle is that knowledge and data accumulated throughout development—from platform studies (e.g., using similar manufacturing processes for different products) and clinical batch manufacturing—can provide substantial evidence of process robustness and consistency, thereby reducing the validation burden at the commercial stage [14].

Strategic Imperative for an Integrated Data Approach

For autologous cell therapies, where each batch originates from a unique donor, the traditional "three-batch" validation paradigm is often impractical [35]. A strategic shift toward continuous process verification—using data from all manufactured batches to demonstrate ongoing process control—becomes essential. This approach requires systematic data collection and management from the earliest development phases, creating a comprehensive knowledge base that supports commercial validation [49] [14].

Table 1: Comparative Regulatory Expectations for Process Validation Strategies

Validation Strategy	FDA Position	EMA Position	Application in Cell Therapy ATMPs
Number of Validation Batches	Not specified; must be statistically adequate based on variability [14]	Generally three consecutive batches (flexibility allowed) [14]	Often requires fewer batches when supported by extensive platform and clinical data
Use of Platform Data	Acceptable where same/similar manufacturing steps are used [14]	Acceptable where same/similar manufacturing steps are used [14]	Enables leveraging data across product candidates using shared manufacturing platforms
Concurrent Validation	Allowed in certain circumstances [14]	Allowed for PRIME products and those addressing unmet needs [14]	Suitable for therapies addressing urgent medical needs
Use of Surrogate Approaches	Allowed, but must be justified [14]	Allowed only in case of a shortage in starting material [14]	Useful when patient starting material is limited

Data Integration and Analysis Methodology

Framework for Data Collection and Management

A systematic approach to data management is fundamental to successfully leveraging platform and clinical data. The implementation of standardized data systems, such as those outlined in the ISO 8472 series for stem cell applications, ensures interoperability between clinical, manufacturing, and quality control data [49]. Siemens research emphasizes that data standards are critical for unlocking the full value of digitalization in biopharmaceutical manufacturing, enabling the integration of disparate process technologies and data sources [50].

The data collection framework should encompass:

• Platform Process Data: Historical data from development and manufacturing of analogous products using the same platform technology, including process parameters, critical quality attributes (CQAs), and performance outcomes [14].
• Clinical Batch Data: Complete data sets from all clinical batches manufactured, including in-process controls, release testing results, and stability data [35].
• Raw Material Data: Quality attributes and performance correlations of critical raw materials, recognizing that the EMA defines materials like viral vectors as 'starting materials,' while the FDA uses the term 'critical raw materials' [14].
• Analytical Method Data: Performance characteristics of analytical methods throughout their lifecycle, from development to validation [21].

Analytical Approach for Data Integration

The integration of diverse data sets requires a structured analytical approach focused on demonstrating process understanding and control:

• Establish Process Design Space: Utilize platform and clinical data to define proven acceptable ranges for critical process parameters (CPPs) that consistently produce material meeting critical quality attributes (CQAs) [51].
• Correlate In-Process Controls with Final Product Quality: Analyze relationships between in-process measurements (e.g., cell viability, metabolic rates) and final product CQAs to identify early indicators of product quality [35].
• Assess Process Capability: Apply statistical process control techniques to clinical and platform data to quantify process capability (Cpk/Ppk) for key quality attributes, demonstrating the process is in a state of control [14].
• Implement Trend Analysis: Establish trending protocols to monitor process performance over time, using statistical models to detect deviations or drift that might indicate process issues [21].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Process Performance Qualification Using Combined Data Sets

Objective: To demonstrate process robustness and reproducibility by integrating platform data with clinical batch data.

Materials:

• Historical platform data (minimum 10 batches across similar products)
• Complete clinical batch records (all phases of development)
• Statistical analysis software (e.g., JMP, Minitab)
• Reference standards for critical quality attributes [21]

Methodology:

• Data Normalization: Standardize data formats across different sources and batches to enable comparative analysis.
• Critical Process Parameter (CPP) Analysis:
  • For each CPP, create control charts using all available platform and clinical data
  • Calculate process capability indices (PpK) for parameters controlling CQAs
  • Establish statistical tolerance limits for each CPP based on the combined data set
• Critical Quality Attribute (CQA) Analysis:
  • Compile all CQA results from platform and clinical batches into a unified database
  • Perform multivariate analysis to identify correlations between CPPs and CQAs
  • Establish predictive models for CQAs based on CPP ranges
• Acceptance Criteria Verification:
  • Verify that CQAs from all historical batches meet proposed commercial specifications
  • For attributes with limited data, apply statistical prediction intervals to define validation boundaries
• Formal Risk Assessment:
  • Document all evidence supporting process robustness
  • Justify commercial process validation approach based on accumulated data

Deliverables: Comprehensive report demonstrating process understanding, statistical analysis of CPP/CQA relationships, and justification for reduced commercial validation studies.

Protocol 2: Analytical Method Bridging and Comparability

Objective: To ensure analytical methods used during development are suitable for commercial control and that data generated across different method versions are comparable.

Materials:

• Retained samples from key clinical batches [21]
• Current and historical reference standards [21]
• Qualified analytical equipment (flow cytometer, PCR systems, etc.)
• Method validation protocols

Methodology:

• Method Performance Verification:
  • Test key clinical batch samples using both development and optimized commercial methods
  • Perform statistical comparison (e.g., equivalence testing, linear regression) of results
  • Verify that method changes do not impact ability to detect meaningful product differences
• Reference Standard Qualification:
  • Establish bridging data between different reference standard generations [21]
  • Demonstrate continuity of analytical control despite standard updates
• Potency Assay Correlation:
  • Correlate results from research-grade potency assays with validated commercial potency methods
  • Ensure biological relevance is maintained throughout method evolution [35]
• Formal Comparability Assessment:
  • Document analytical method performance across its lifecycle
  • Justify continued suitability for commercial quality control

Deliverables: Analytical comparability report, method performance verification data, and justified commercial control strategy.

Protocol 3: Raw Material Impact Assessment

Objective: To leverage platform data to qualify raw material suppliers and specifications, ensuring consistent product quality.

Materials:

• Quality control data for all raw material lots used in platform and clinical studies
• Corresponding in-process and release testing data
• Alternative vendor materials for comparison

Methodology:

• Raw Material Attribute Analysis:
  • Compile quality attributes for all raw material lots used historically
  • Correlate material attributes with process performance and product CQAs
• Vendor Qualification:
  • Analyze performance differences between materials from different vendors
  • Establish vendor acceptance criteria based on historical performance data
• Specification Justification:
  • Use platform data to justify proposed commercial specifications for raw materials
  • Identify critical material attributes that significantly impact product quality
• Risk-Based Testing Strategy:
  • Develop reduced testing protocols for well-characterized materials
  • Justify based on extensive platform experience

Deliverables: Raw material control strategy, vendor qualification report, and justified specifications based on historical data.

Data Visualization and Process Mapping

Data Integration Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the systematic integration of platform and clinical data to support commercial process validation:

Analytical Method Progression

The evolution of analytical methods throughout development and their role in supporting commercial validation is visualized below:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The successful implementation of these protocols requires specific reagents and materials designed to ensure data quality and interoperability.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Data Integration Studies

Reagent/Material	Function	Application in Validation
Reference Standards	Provides continuity for analytical method performance across development phases [21]	Enables comparability assessment between platform, clinical, and commercial data sets
Characterized Cell Banks	Well-documented cell sources with known performance characteristics [1]	Serves as consistent starting material for platform studies and method development
Standardized Culture Media	Defined formulations with minimal lot-to-lot variability [35]	Reduces process variability, enhancing data reliability across batches
Quality-Controlled Viral Vectors	Vectors manufactured under GMP with comprehensive characterization [14]	Ensures consistent genetic modification efficiency across studies
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry Panels	Standardized antibody panels for cell phenotype characterization [35]	Enables quantitative comparison of cell products across different batches and studies
Functional Potency Assay Components	Reagents for biologically relevant potency measurements [35]	Supports development of quantitative potency assays critical for comparability
Data Standardization Templates	Electronic templates for consistent data capture (e.g., following ISO 8472) [49]	Ensures data interoperability and facilitates statistical analysis across studies

The strategic integration of platform and clinical batch data presents a scientifically rigorous and regulatory-acceptable approach to commercial process validation for cell therapy ATMPs. This methodology addresses the unique challenges of these complex products while maintaining the fundamental principles of quality, safety, and efficacy. By implementing the protocols and frameworks outlined in this application note, developers can build compelling evidence packages that demonstrate deep process understanding and control, potentially accelerating patient access to transformative cell therapies. As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve, this proactive approach to data utilization and knowledge management will become increasingly essential for successful commercialization.

Solving Common Validation Challenges in Cell Therapy Manufacturing

The development and manufacturing of autologous cell therapies, a key category of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), present a fundamental challenge: the inherent and substantial variability of the patient-derived cellular starting material. Unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, where raw materials can be standardized, the quality and composition of apheresis material are directly influenced by the patient's disease state and prior treatment history. This variability introduces significant challenges for process validation, as it can impact critical process parameters and critical quality attributes of the final drug product, thereby affecting the robustness and overall success of the manufacturing process [45] [52]. Effectively managing this variability is not merely a technical obstacle but a prerequisite for developing a validated, consistent, and commercially viable manufacturing process for cell-based ATMPs. This Application Note details the sources of this variability and provides structured experimental protocols to characterize and mitigate its effects.

Patient-specific factors lead to measurable differences in the cellular composition of apheresis starting material. The following tables summarize key quantitative data on these sources of variability.

Table 1: Impact of Disease State on Peripheral Blood Cell Counts at Apheresis [52]

Disease State	White Blood Cell Count (WBC)	Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC)	Hemoglobin (Anemia)	Platelets (Thrombocytopenia)
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)	Leukocytosis (High)	Lymphocytosis (High)	Likely	Likely
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)	Leukocytosis (High)	Lymphocytosis (High)	-	Likely
Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LCL)	-	Lymphopenic (Low)	Likely	-
Multiple Myeloma (MM)	-	Lymphopenic (Low)	Likely	-
Glioblastoma (GBM)	-	Lymphopenic (Low)	-	-
Solid Tumors (ST)	-	Lymphopenic (Low)	-	-

Table 2: Impact of Prior Treatments on T-Cell Starting Material [45] [52]

Prior Treatment	Impact on T-Cells and Apheresis Product	Consequence for Manufacturing
Chemotherapy (e.g., Cyclophosphamide, Cytarabine)	Selective depletion of early lineage T-cells; reduced T-cell fitness and number [52].	Impaired ex vivo T-cell expansion; potential manufacturing failure [45].
Radiation Therapy	Contributes to overall lymphopenia and reduced T-cell quality.	Decreased T-cell yield and purity in the apheresis product [45].
Immunotherapies	Alters T-cell functionality and suitability for genetic modification.	Impacts transduction efficiency and final product potency [45].
Years of Multi-Line Therapy	Cumulative damage to immune system; frequent lymphopenia.	High variability in cell collection; challenges in meeting minimum cell doses [45] [52].

Experimental Protocol for Characterizing Starting Material

This protocol provides a methodology to quantitatively analyze apheresis products and link their composition to downstream process performance.

Objective

To comprehensively characterize the cellular and functional attributes of apheresis starting material and correlate these attributes with critical process outcomes such as T-cell expansion, transduction efficiency, and final drug product quality.

Materials and Reagents

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Apheresis Characterization

Reagent / Material	Function / Application
Anti-coagulated Apheresis Product	The patient-derived starting material for analysis and processing.
Ficoll-Paque or equivalent	Density gradient medium for isolation of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMCs).
CTS Dynabeads CD3/CD28	For T-cell activation and expansion [53].
Cell Culture Media (e.g., CTS OpTmizer)	Serum-free medium for the culture and expansion of T-cells.
Flow Cytometry Antibodies (Anti-CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45, CD14, CD19, CD56)	Immunophenotyping to determine cellular composition and purity.
Flow Cytometry Antibodies (Anti-CD69, CD25, HLA-DR)	Assessment of T-cell activation status [53].
Flow Cytometry Antibodies (Anti-LAG3, TIM3, PD-1, TIGIT)	Assessment of T-cell exhaustion markers [53].
Trypan Blue or Automated Cell Counter	Determination of total cell count and viability.
Cytokine ELISA Kits (e.g., IFN-γ, IL-2)	Measurement of T-cell functional response.

Methodological Workflow

The following diagram outlines the key steps for characterizing starting material and its impact on manufacturing.

Detailed Procedure

• Apheresis Product Receipt and Initial Processing:

  • Record the volume of the apheresis product and mix thoroughly.
  • Perform initial testing: Take a sample for a complete blood count (CBC) with differential.
  • Isolate PBMCs: Using Ficoll-Paque density gradient centrifugation according to standard protocols. Wash cells and resuspend in appropriate media.
  • Determine cell count and viability using an automated cell counter or hemocytometer with Trypan Blue.

• Comprehensive Cellular Characterization:

  • Immunophenotyping by Flow Cytometry: Stain cells with fluorescently-labeled antibodies against CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45, CD14, CD19, and CD56. Use this panel to determine the percentages and absolute counts of T-cells (helper and cytotoxic), B-cells, monocytes, and natural killer (NK) cells in the product.
  • T-cell Activation and Exhaustion Profiling: From the PBMC sample, stain cells with antibodies against activation markers (CD69, CD25, HLA-DR) and exhaustion markers (LAG3, TIM3, PD-1, TIGIT). Analyze using flow cytometry to establish a baseline functional state of the T-cells [53].

• Downstream Process Performance Tracking:

  • Initiate T-cell culture using a standardized protocol (e.g., activation with CTS Dynabeads CD3/CD28) [53].
  • Monitor expansion: Track viable cell density and fold expansion throughout the culture period.
  • Assess transduction efficiency if generating genetically modified cells (e.g., CAR-T cells).
  • Characterize the final product for identity, potency, and critical quality attributes.

• Data Analysis and Correlation:

  • Compile all data from the starting material characterization and the corresponding manufacturing outcomes.
  • Perform statistical analysis (e.g., regression analysis, cross-tabulation) to identify which input attributes (e.g., low CD3+ count, high exhaustion marker expression) are correlated with poor process performance (e.g., low fold expansion, failed release specifications) [54].

Protocol for Mitigating Variability Through Process Automation

To reduce the impact of variable starting materials and operator-dependent error, implementing a semi-automated, closed manufacturing system is recommended.

Objective

To establish a consistent and robust manufacturing workflow for T-cell therapies that minimizes variability introduced by manual handling and accommodates incoming material differences through controlled processing.

Materials and Reagents

• Modular Automated Instruments (e.g., Thermo Fisher Scientific CTS suite for cell isolation, activation, electroporation, and expansion) [53].
• CTS Cellmation Software or equivalent for workflow automation and control.
• Closed-System Sterile Tubing Sets for connecting instrument consumables.
• GMP-grade Cell Culture Reagents and Media.

Automated Workflow Diagram

The following diagram illustrates a connected, automated workflow for cell therapy manufacturing.

Detailed Procedure

• System Setup and Integration:

  • Physically connect the consumables of the modular instruments (e.g., cell washer, bioreactor) using pre-sterilized, welded PVC tubing to create a closed system [53].
  • Digitally connect the instruments to the automation software (e.g., CTS Cellmation) using the Open Platform Communications United Architecture (OPC-UA) industrial standard.
  • Program a user-specific batch recipe in the software to control the sequence, timing, and parameters of each unit operation.

• Execution of Automated Manufacturing:

  • Load the thawed leukapheresis product into the system.
  • Initiate the automated batch recipe. The software will control the process flow:
    • T-cell Isolation: Automatically perform cell selection and washing steps.
    • T-cell Activation: Transfer cells to the bioreactor and introduce activation beads.
    • Bead Removal: After the activation period, automatically remove the beads using a dedicated system.
    • Genetic Modification: For CAR-T cells, perform electroporation for gene delivery.
    • Cell Expansion: Culture cells in a controlled bioreactor for the specified duration.
    • Final Harvest: At the end of the expansion, harvest the final cell product [53].
  • The system logs all process data (e.g., cell counts, viability, operation timestamps) automatically, ensuring data integrity and traceability.

• Quality Control and Monitoring:

  • At defined points (e.g., post-isolation, post-harvest), aseptically sample the product for in-process testing (cell count, viability, flow cytometry).
  • Compare process consistency and product quality attributes across multiple runs with variable starting materials to demonstrate the robustness of the automated system [53].

The variability inherent in autologous starting material, driven by patient disease state and prior treatments, is a critical factor that must be actively managed within the Process Validation lifecycle for ATMPs. A systematic approach that involves detailed characterization of apheresis products and the implementation of controlled, automated manufacturing processes is essential. The data generated from the described protocols enables the definition of meaningful critical quality attributes for starting materials, supports the establishment of a validated manufacturing control strategy, and provides the evidence needed to justify process boundaries to regulatory authorities. By adopting these practices, developers can enhance process robustness, improve product consistency, and ultimately accelerate the delivery of reliable cell therapies to patients.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), including cell and gene therapies, represent a groundbreaking class of biological medicines that offer potential solutions for complex diseases [1]. Unlike conventional pharmaceuticals, ATMPs are characterized by their inherent complexity and biological heterogeneity, which present unique challenges for analytical characterization [21]. The living nature of these products, combined with frequently personalized manufacturing approaches, creates significant variability in analytical method performance that can impact product quality assessment and regulatory decisions.

Ensuring consistent quality through robust analytical methods is particularly challenging due to several factors: variable starting materials, complex biological features, limited batch history, small sample availability due to small batch sizes, high manufacturing costs, and frequently lacking assay references and controls [21]. This application note addresses these challenges by providing detailed protocols and methodologies for implementing advanced analytical techniques and novel instrumentation to overcome method variability throughout the cell therapy product lifecycle, framed within the broader context of process validation requirements for ATMPs.

Advanced Analytical Techniques for Cell Therapy Characterization

Microfluidic Platforms for Enhanced Quality Control

Microfluidic technology represents a transformative approach to quality control in cell therapy manufacturing, particularly for CAR-T therapies. This technology utilizes microchannels designed and fabricated to achieve high control of liquids, offering significant advantages for analytical assays including increased sensitivity, lower limits of detection, and improved time-to-result [55]. The benefits stem from excellent spatiotemporal control over the cellular microenvironment, short diffusion path lengths, and operation at low volumes, which translates to reduced reagent consumption and costs [55].

Table 1: Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) Assessable via Microfluidic Platforms

Category	CQA	Example Specification	Conventional Method	Microfluidic Advantage
Safety	Sterility	Sterile	Culture-based (14-28 days)	PCR-based (3-24 hours) [55]
	Mycoplasma	Negative	Culture-based (28 days)	Nucleic acid amplification (1-5 hours) [55]
	Endotoxin	<0.5-3.5 EU/mL	Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL)	Cartridge-based LAL with handheld spectrophotometer [55]
	Vector Copy Number (VCN)	≤4 copies/cell	qPCR	Enhanced sensitivity with lower sample volume [55]
Identity	Viability	≥70-80%	Trypan blue/automated cell counters	Real-time single-cell analysis [55]
	Dose	>50 million CAR T cells	Hemocytometer/flow cytometry	Integrated counting and characterization [55]
Purity	CAR+ expression	≥15%	Flow cytometry	High-resolution phenotypic analysis [55]
	CD3+ cell content	≥90%	Flow cytometry	Microfluidic flow cytometry [55]
Potency	In vitro cytotoxicity	>20%	Chromium-51 release assay	Real-time, label-free impedance monitoring [55]
	Cytokine release	1-10 ng/mL	ELISA/ELISpot	Automated immunoassays (e.g., ELLA) [55]

Maturity-Based Framework for Analytical Method Selection

A strategic approach to managing method variability involves categorizing analytical techniques based on their development maturity and implementation complexity:

• Fully Mature Methods: These established techniques can be readily adapted from traditional biopharmaceuticals and include excipient testing, host cell protein (HCP) monitoring, and host cell DNA impurity detection. They typically utilize kit-based assays with fully GMP-compliant analytical systems and software [21].

• Methods Requiring Development: This category includes techniques with established platforms that require significant adaptation for ATMP applications, such as post-translational modification analysis of capsid proteins via peptide mapping, relative quantification of proteins by liquid chromatography or capillary electrophoresis, and aggregate analysis via size-exclusion chromatography. These methods demand special attention during validation to address ATMP-specific challenges like larger molecule sizes and lower protein concentrations [21].

• Immature Methods: The most challenging category encompasses techniques like analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) and cryogenic electron microscopy (cryoEM) for assessing attributes such as empty/full capsid ratios in viral vectors. These methods require extensive development, lack commercially available compliant software, and may change significantly during development, creating comparability challenges [21].

Experimental Protocols for Variability Reduction

Protocol: Microfluidic Potency Assessment for CAR-T Cells

Principle: This protocol utilizes microfluidic technology to assess CAR-T cell potency through real-time, label-free monitoring of cytotoxic activity, addressing variability in traditional endpoint assays [55].

Materials:

• Purified CAR-T cell product (effector cells)
• Target cells expressing appropriate antigen
• Microfluidic cytotoxicity device (e.g., xCELLigence RTCA system)
• Cell culture medium appropriate for both cell types
• Sterile tubes and pipettes

Procedure:

• Device Preparation: Prime microfluidic channels with appropriate cell culture medium according to manufacturer specifications.
• Target Cell Seeding: Load target cell suspension at optimized density (typically 1-5×10⁴ cells/well) into designated chambers.
• Baseline Monitoring: Incubate target cells for 4-6 hours with continuous impedance monitoring to establish baseline measurements.
• Effector Cell Introduction: Introduce CAR-T cells at effector-to-target (E:T) ratios of 1:1, 5:1, and 10:1 into respective chambers containing target cells.
• Real-time Monitoring: Continuously monitor impedance every 15 minutes for 24-96 hours to track cell-mediated killing kinetics.
• Data Analysis: Calculate percentage cytotoxicity using the formula: % Cytotoxicity = [1 - (ImpedanceE:T/ImpedanceTarget alone)] × 100
• Quality Criteria: Establish acceptance criteria based on historical data; typically, >20% cytotoxicity at relevant E:T ratio [55].

Validation Parameters:

• Specificity: Demonstrate response is antigen-specific using negative control cells
• Linearity: Test across E:T ratios from 0.5:1 to 20:1
• Precision: Perform replicate analyses (n≥6) to establish intra-assay and inter-assay variability
• Range: Establish the quantitative range where impedance response is linear with cell number

Protocol: Risk-Based Analytical Method Validation

Principle: Implementation of phase-appropriate validation strategy aligned with ICH Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management principles to focus resources on critical method parameters [17].

Materials:

• Analytical method to be validated
• Reference standards (when available)
• Test samples representing expected variability
• Appropriate statistical analysis software

Procedure:

• Risk Assessment: Identify potential sources of method variability through Fishbone diagrams or FMEA focusing on analytical target profile (ATP) requirements [21].
• Define ATP: Establish analytical target profile during early development phase connecting CQAs to ultimate release specifications [21].
• Phase-Appropriate Validation:
  • Early Phase: Focus on specificity, precision, and robustness using limited sample sets
  • Late Phase: Comprehensive validation per ICH Q2(R1) including accuracy, linearity, range, and quantification limits
• Design of Experiments (DoE): Utilize DoE approaches to efficiently evaluate multiple method parameters and their interactions while conserving limited sample amounts [21].
• Continuous Monitoring: Implement system suitability tests and control charts to monitor method performance throughout product lifecycle.
• Comparability Protocol: Establish predefined acceptance criteria for method modifications to facilitate improvements without requiring complete revalidation.

Validation Parameters by Development Phase:

Table 2: Phase-Appropriate Analytical Validation Strategy

Validation Parameter	Preclinical/Early Phase	Clinical Phase	Commercial Phase
Accuracy/Recovery	Qualitative assessment	3 concentration levels, n=3	3 concentration levels, n=9
Precision	Repeatability (n=3)	Intermediate precision (n=6)	Intermediate precision (n=15)
Specificity	Demonstration versus control	Forced degradation studies	Extended forced degradation
Linearity	3 concentration points	5 concentration points	5-8 concentration points
Range	Expected sample range	70-130% of target	50-150% of target
Robustness	Limited parameter testing	DoE of critical parameters	Full DoE with edge of failure

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Analytical Method Development

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples	Variability Control
Interim Reference Standards	Provides continuity and confidence in analytical methods when formal standards are unavailable [21]	Potency assays, vector copy number determination	Enables method comparability during development
Process-Matched Controls	Assay controls representative of manufacturing process [21]	qPCR/dPCR, flow cytometry, potency assays	Demonstrates consistency through development lifecycle
Multiplex Assay Kits	Simultaneous measurement of multiple analytes	Cytokine release profiling, cell phenotype characterization	Reduces inter-assay variability through consolidated testing
Digital PCR Reagents	Absolute quantification without standard curves [56]	Vector copy number, residual DNA quantification	Eliminates standard curve-related variability
Viability-Stabilized Controls	Maintains consistent viability measurements	Automated cell counters, flow cytometry	Controls for operator and instrumentation variability
Mass Spectrometry Standards	Internal standards for quantitative proteomics [56]	Host cell protein analysis, post-translational modifications	Compensates for instrument performance fluctuations

Workflow and Relationship Visualizations

Diagram 1: Strategic framework for selecting and implementing analytical methods based on maturity level and risk assessment to overcome variability challenges.

Diagram 2: Comprehensive quality control workflow for CAR-T cell therapies utilizing advanced microfluidic and automated technologies to minimize analytical variability.

Contamination control represents a paramount challenge in the manufacturing of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), such as cell and gene therapies. Most ATMPs are required to be sterile, necessitating aseptic processing at multiple manufacturing steps, yet these complex processes often cannot be terminally sterilized [57]. Establishing a robust Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) is therefore critical to ensure patient safety and product quality throughout the clinical development lifecycle and eventual commercialization [57]. Traditional biological manufacturing risk assessment approaches often prove insufficient for ATMPs due to their novel manufacturing processes, which frequently transition from academic or clinical settings into cGMP-compliant sites with significant optimization requirements for sterility assurance [57]. This application note examines the implementation of risk-based strategies, specifically the Aseptic Risk Evaluation Model (AREM), coupled with closed-system automation technologies to address these unique challenges within the broader context of process validation requirements for cell therapy ATMPs.

Risk-Based Strategies: The Aseptic Risk Evaluation Model (AREM)

The Aseptic Risk Evaluation Model (AREM) provides a formal, systematic approach to managing the unique risks of aseptic processing of ATMPs. This model addresses the subjectivity found in traditional risk assessment methodologies by employing critical thinking by subject matter experts to make better-informed decisions [57]. AREM is designed to be objective, logical, and easy to understand and use, focusing specifically on parameters relevant to aseptic manipulations and their potential to result in microbial contamination.

The model evaluates three key factors that determine the inherent risk of an aseptic manipulation relative to all other manipulations performed during manufacturing [57]:

• Duration: The time required to complete the manipulation
• Complexity: The number of discrete steps and technical difficulty
• Proximity: The spatial relationship between the operator's hands, critical sites, and product/container interfaces

Table 1: Factors Evaluated in the Aseptic Risk Evaluation Model (AREM)

Factor	Description	Impact on Contamination Risk
Duration	Time required to complete the aseptic manipulation	Longer duration increases exposure time to potential environmental contaminants
Complexity	Number of discrete steps, technical difficulty, and hand coordination required	Higher complexity increases opportunity for technique failure and breach of aseptic conditions
Proximity	Spatial relationship between operator's hands, critical sites, and product interfaces	Closer proximity increases potential for direct contact or airflow disruption near critical sites

AREM Implementation Protocol

Protocol 2.2.1: AREM Risk Assessment Implementation

Objective: To systematically identify, analyze, and evaluate risks related to aseptic processing within ATMP manufacturing using the AREM methodology.

Materials:

• Multidisciplinary SME team (MSAT, manufacturing, quality assurance, QC microbiology, sterility assurance)
• Trained risk facilitator
• Batch records and process documentation
• AREM rating criteria and matrices
• Demonstration materials (water, mock solutions, development laboratory space)

Methodology:

• Risk-Based Approach Pre-work

  • Define the risk question: "What is the relative risk of loss of sterility assurance from each individual manipulation performed within the aseptic boundary during manufacture of the drug product?"
  • Establish SME team with representation from multiple departments, including personnel who perform the aseptic process in the GMP manufacturing setting
  • Define assessment scope and aseptic boundaries (beginning and end points)
  • Perform process demonstration using water in place of product and process solutions to simulate aseptic manipulations

• Determine All Aseptic Steps

  • Review batch records step-by-step to identify each individual aseptic manipulation
  • Document all process steps where product flow path or in-process material is exposed to the environment or where the product flow path is broken
  • Create comprehensive list of all aseptic manipulations within scope

• Rate Each Individual Manipulation

  • Score each aseptic manipulation using agreed-upon criteria for duration, complexity, and proximity
  • Use the AREM risk ranking criteria for consistent evaluation across all manipulations
  • Document scores and justifications for each factor

• Determine Overall Risk Score

  • Input risk factor scores into the two-matrix AREM approach
  • Use preliminary matrix to combine complexity and duration ratings, producing a preliminary risk value
  • Input preliminary risk value into final matrix alongside proximity rating to determine overall risk value
  • Categorize manipulations as low, medium, or high risk

• Risk Management and Control

  • Specify actions based on risk ranking (e.g., eliminate, redesign, enhance controls, proceduralize, accept)
  • Implement risk reduction measures for high and medium risk manipulations
  • Document the entire assessment and control strategy

Table 2: AREM Risk Ranking Criteria for Aseptic Manipulations

Factor	Low Risk (1)	Medium Risk (2)	High Risk (3)
Duration	Short (< 30 seconds)	Moderate (30 seconds - 2 minutes)	Long (> 2 minutes)
Complexity	Simple, single step	Moderate complexity, few steps	Highly complex, multiple intricate steps
Proximity	Distant hand position	Moderate proximity	Direct/highly proximate

Closed System Automation Technologies

Closed vs. Open Systems

The fundamental difference between closed and open systems in cell therapy manufacturing lies in the product's exposure to the manufacturing environment. Open systems, while simple and low-cost, expose the cell therapy product to potential environmental contaminants and require increased user interaction, leading to higher risks of manufacturing failures and batch-to-batch variability [58]. In contrast, closed systems are designed to avoid product exposure to the room environment through sterile barriers and connectors, or through the incorporation of single-use technologies (SUTs) such as bioreactors and tubing [58].

The advantages of closed systems extend beyond contamination control. They enable operation in a Grade C manufacturing facility rather than more expensive Grade A or B facilities, offer greater flexibility in facility design, and can be placed in controlled but non-classified environments [58]. For allogeneic therapeutic natural killer (NK) cells manufactured from umbilical cord blood-derived CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells, closed, semi-automated processes have demonstrated robust performance across multiple manufacturing runs, maintaining cell viability and function while reducing contamination risks [59].

Automated System Implementation

Protocol 3.2.1: Implementation of Closed System Automation for NK Cell Manufacturing

Objective: To implement a closed, semi-automated manufacturing system for allogeneic NK cells from umbilical cord blood-derived CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells using the CliniMACS Prodigy system.

Materials:

• CliniMACS Prodigy system (Miltenyi Biotech)
• LP-34 Enrichment Protocol (version 2.2) and corresponding tubing set TS310
• CliniMACS PBS/EDTA Buffer with 0.5% human serum albumin (HSA)
• Glycostem Basal Growth Medium (GBGM)
• CliniMACS CD34 reagent
• Fc receptor blocking solution (5% IgG)
• Fresh umbilical cord blood units (≥3.5E06 CD34+ cells for GMP batches)
• Vuelife 290AC gas-permeable bags (Saint-Gobain)
• Xuri cellbags (2L or 10L basic cellbags, Cytiva)
• Xuri bioreactor system

Methodology:

• CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem Cell Enrichment

  • Perform CD34+ HSC enrichment from fresh UCB using the LP-34 Enrichment Protocol on the CliniMACS Prodigy
  • Install TS310 tubing set through Prodigy Software guidance (version 1.4)
  • Use CliniMACS PBS/EDTA Buffer with 0.5% HSA as washing buffer and GBGM for cell elution
  • Perform Fc receptor blocking using 5% IgG solution
  • Collect 1 mL sample from the eluted enriched fraction (approximately 80 mL) for quality control and flow cytometry analysis
  • Process according to "normal scale" specifications (up to 0.6E09 CD34+ cells and 60E09 total white blood cells)

• Cell Culture and Expansion

  • Culture NK cells using the uNiK process under GMP conditions for clinical applications
  • Conduct early cell expansion (day 0-12) in static culture in gas-permeable bags in an incubator at 37°C and 5% CO2
  • Perform differentiation (day 13-end of culture) in continuous agitation in Xuri cellbags in a Xuri bioreactor at 37°C and 6% CO2
  • Maintain cells in GBGM medium with 5%-10% human serum throughout the entire culture process
  • Replenish fresh medium twice weekly
  • Culture for 28-41 days total duration

• Final Product Harvest and Concentration

  • Utilize the CliniMACS Prodigy system for final harvest and concentration of NK cells
  • Process batches with varying cell culture volumes (low: <2L, medium: 2-5L, high: >5L)
  • Assess cell recovery, NK cell purity, and impurity levels (B and T cell content)
  • Target cell recovery of >80% with NK cell purity >80%

• Quality Assessment

  • Monitor CD34+ cell recovery and purity post-enrichment
  • Evaluate NK cell yield and purity post-harvest
  • Assess impurity levels (B and T cell content)
  • Document process consistency and performance across manufacturing runs

Table 3: Performance Data of Closed System NK Cell Manufacturing (N=36 runs)

Process Parameter	Low Group	Medium Group	High Group
CD34+ Cell Recovery	68.18% (N=11)	68.46% (N=13)	71.94% (N=12)
CD34+ Cell Purity	57.48%	62.11%	69.73%
Harvest Yield (Cell Recovery)	74.59% (N=7)	82.69% (N=14)	83.74% (N=8)
NK Cell Purity	>80% (stable across all groups)
B and T Cell Impurities	Low or undetectable	Low or undetectable	Low or undetectable

Digital Integration and Process Control

Software-driven digital integration plays an essential role in supporting full automation across the entire cell therapy manufacturing workflow. Digital integration improves manufacturing productivity and process control by monitoring the entire workflow from raw material sourcing through product delivery to the clinic [58]. This tracking ensures data integrity, traceability, and regulatory compliance while aiding in process scale-up.

In a mature manufacturing environment, production (hardware and controllers), control layers (e.g., supervisory controls), and manufacturing execution systems should be connected [58]. Software tools offer the ability to mine and analyze data from upstream and downstream batch records across batches for real-time optimization and troubleshooting. Solutions such as Gibco CTS Cellmation Software for the DeltaV System provide off-the-shelf digital platforms that connect cell therapy instruments within a common DeltaV network to control workflows across multiple instruments in a 21 CFR Part 11 compliant environment [58].

Integrated Contamination Control Workflow

The integration of risk-based assessment and closed-system technologies creates a comprehensive contamination control strategy for ATMP manufacturing. The following workflow diagram illustrates the logical relationship between these components:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy ATMP Manufacturing

Reagent/System	Function	Application in Contamination Control
CliniMACS Prodigy System	Automated cell processing platform	Enables closed-system processing with minimal operator intervention and environmental exposure
CliniMACS CD34 Reagent	Magnetic bead-based cell selection	Isolates target cells within closed system, reducing manual processing steps
CliniMACS PBS/EDTA Buffer	Cell washing and processing buffer	Maintains cell viability and function during automated processing steps
Human Serum Albumin (HSA)	Protein stabilizer and carrier	Used in buffer formulations to maintain cell viability during processing
Glycostem Basal Growth Medium (GBGM)	Cell culture and expansion medium	Supports cell growth and differentiation in closed system bioreactors
CTS Cellmation Software	Digital integration and control	Provides 21 CFR Part 11 compliant monitoring and control of manufacturing workflow
Xuri Bioreactor System	Automated cell culture system	Enables scalable cell expansion in closed, controlled environment
Vuelife Gas-Permeable Bags	Static cell culture containers	Allow cell expansion without frequent manipulation or open processing

The implementation of integrated risk-based strategies and closed-system technologies provides a robust framework for contamination control in cell therapy ATMP manufacturing. The Aseptic Risk Evaluation Model offers a systematic approach to identifying and controlling contamination risks, while closed-system automation technologies significantly reduce reliance on manual operations and environmental controls. The combination of these approaches, as demonstrated in the NK cell manufacturing case study, enables consistent production of high-quality ATMPs with reduced contamination risk, improved batch-to-batch consistency, and enhanced scalability. This integrated approach supports the broader process validation requirements for cell therapy ATMPs by providing documented, controlled, and reproducible manufacturing processes that ensure product safety and quality throughout the product lifecycle.

For cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), potency represents a critical quality attribute (CQA) that regulatory agencies consider essential for lot release, defined as "the specific ability or capacity of the product to affect a given result" [46]. Potency assays must quantitatively measure the biological activity reflective of the product's mechanism of action (MoA) to ensure consistent therapeutic efficacy [46]. Unlike small molecule drugs, cell therapies often function through complex, multifaceted biological mechanisms that cannot be adequately captured by single-attribute measurements. The transition from reductionist, single-attribute approaches to comprehensive assay matrices represents a paradigm shift in potency assay strategy, enabling developers to more accurately characterize product functionality and meet regulatory expectations for marketing authorization [46] [9].

The consequences of inadequate potency strategies can be severe. Regulatory surveys indicate that potency testing issues were cited in almost 50% of ATMP marketing applications in the EU, sometimes emerging late in the review process [46]. A notable example is the case of Iovance Biotherapeutics' tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy, lifileucel, where the FDA repeatedly delayed the Biologics License Application (BLA) submission due to an insufficient single-assay approach, ultimately requiring development of a new multi-assay matrix strategy that caused multi-year approval delays [46]. This case underscores the regulatory imperative for robust, matrix-based potency assays that can adequately capture the complexity of cell therapy biological activity.

The Scientific Basis for Assay Matrices

Limitations of Single-Attribute Measurements

Single-attribute potency measurements typically focus on one specific aspect of product function, such as quantification of a single secreted factor or expression of a particular surface marker. While analytically straightforward, this approach fails to capture the integrated biological complexity of cell therapies, where therapeutic effects often result from multiple synergistic mechanisms [46]. For example, a cell therapy might simultaneously promote regeneration through direct differentiation, paracrine signaling, and immunomodulation—processes that cannot be adequately represented by measuring any single parameter.

The validation of a VEGF potency assay for ProtheraCytes (expanded autologous CD34+ cells) demonstrates both the utility and limitations of single-attribute approaches. While VEGF secretion correlates with the angiogenic capacity of these cells and serves as a quantifiable potency marker, it likely represents only one component of their complete therapeutic mechanism [60]. The assay validation established strong performance characteristics, including a linear range of 20-2800 pg/mL (R² = 0.9972), precision with CVs ≤ 10% for repeatability, and accuracy with mean recoveries between 85-105% [60]. However, even well-validated single-attribute assays may provide an incomplete picture of product functionality, particularly for therapies with complex or incompletely understood MoAs.

Advantages of Multi-Attribute Assay Matrices

Assay matrices address the limitations of single-attribute approaches by integrating multiple complementary measurements that collectively represent the complete therapeutic mechanism. This strategy provides several significant advantages:

• Comprehensive MoA Representation: By measuring multiple aspects of product function, assay matrices more accurately reflect complex biological activities, such as a cell therapy's capacity for targeted cytotoxicity, cytokine secretion, and differentiation potential simultaneously [46].

• Enhanced Robustness and Reliability: Matrix approaches reduce the risk of lot rejection due to variability in any single parameter, providing a more stable and reliable basis for quality control decisions [46].

• Regulatory Confidence: Well-designed matrices demonstrate deeper product understanding and provide greater assurance of consistent efficacy, facilitating regulatory approval [46] [9].

• Improved Process Control: Multiple potency parameters offer enhanced sensitivity for detecting manufacturing process variations and support more informed process optimization [46].

The following diagram illustrates the strategic advantage of implementing an assay matrix approach over traditional single-attribute methods:

Implementation Strategy: Developing Validated Assay Matrices

Framework for Matrix Design and Validation

Implementing a successful potency assay matrix requires systematic planning and phase-appropriate validation. The framework should begin with thorough product characterization to identify CQAs, followed by selection of complementary assays that collectively represent the complete MoA [46]. Each assay within the matrix must undergo rigorous validation according to international guidelines, such as ICH Q2(R2) for analytical procedure validation, with demonstrated precision, accuracy, specificity, and robustness [60] [61].

For the ProtheraCytes VEGF potency assay, validation followed ICH Q2(R2) guidelines and included demonstration of linearity across the working range (20-2800 pg/mL, R² = 0.9972), precision (CV ≤ 10% for repeatability, ≤ 20% for intermediate precision), accuracy (85-105% recovery), and specificity (VEGF concentration in unspiked medium below LLOQ) [60]. Similarly, flow cytometry-based potency methods should establish selectivity, precision, and robustness appropriate to their application in ATMP development [62]. The validation data for the VEGF potency assay are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Validation Parameters for VEGF Potency Assay Using ELLA System [60]

Validation Parameter	Methodology	Acceptance Criteria	Results
Linearity & Range	8 concentrations from 20-2800 pg/mL	R² ≥ 0.95	R² = 0.9972
Repeatability Precision	Multiple replicates of same sample	CV ≤ 10%	CV ≤ 10%
Intermediate Precision	Different days, different operators	CV ≤ 20%	CV ≤ 20%
Accuracy	Spiked recovery in matrix	85-105% recovery	85-105% recovery
Specificity	Unspiked culture medium	Below LLOQ (20 pg/mL)	2 pg/mL
Robustness	Deliberate variations in method parameters	Consistent results	Established

Experimental Protocol: VEGF Potency Assay

Principle: This protocol describes the quantification of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secreted by CD34+ cells during expansion as a potency assay for ProtheraCytes, using an automated immunoassay system (ELLA) [60].

Materials:

• ELLA automated immunoassay system (Bio-Techne, ref # 600-100)
• Simple Plex Cartridge Kit containing VEGF-A (Bio-Techne, ref # SPCKA-CS-001911)
• Cell culture supernatants from expanded CD34+ cells
• VEGF standards and controls (high and low)
• Sterile pipette tips and microcentrifuge tubes

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Collect cell culture supernatant after 9 days of CD34+ cell expansion. Centrifuge at 300 × g for 10 minutes to remove cellular debris. Aliquot and store at -80°C if not testing immediately.
• Instrument Preparation: Initialize ELLA system according to manufacturer's instructions. Allow instrument to complete self-check and temperature stabilization.
• Cartridge Loading: Load Simple Plex cartridge into designated slot. Pipette 65 μL of each standard, control, and sample into appropriate wells of the cartridge.
• Assay Execution: Start automated run protocol. The system automatically performs all incubation, washing, and detection steps.
• Data Analysis: After run completion (approximately 90 minutes), review standard curve fit (R² ≥ 0.95). Verify control values within specified ranges (low control: 24.4-42.0 pg/mL; high control: 1108-2274 pg/mL).
• Calculation: Determine VEGF concentration in samples by interpolation from standard curve. Apply dilution factors if necessary.

Acceptance Criteria:

• Standard curve R² value ≥ 0.95
• Control values within specified ranges
• Samples with VEGF concentration between 20-2800 pg/mL (validated range)

Experimental Protocol: Flow Cytometry Potency Assay

Principle: Flow cytometry enables multiparameter assessment of cell therapy potency by simultaneously measuring surface markers, intracellular cytokines, and functional responses [62].

Materials:

• Flow cytometer with minimum 3-color detection capability
• Cell staining buffer (PBS with 1% BSA)
• Fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies against target antigens
• Intracellular staining fixation/permeabilization buffer
• Viability dye
• Stimulation cocktail (e.g., PMA/ionomycin or antigen-specific stimuli)

Procedure:

• Cell Preparation: Harvest cells from culture and wash with PBS. Count and adjust concentration to 1-5 × 10^6 cells/mL in staining buffer.
• Viability Staining: Add viability dye to cell suspension, incubate 10-20 minutes at room temperature protected from light.
• Surface Marker Staining: Add fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies against surface antigens of interest. Incubate 30 minutes at 4°C protected from light.
• Fixation and Permeabilization: Wash cells twice with staining buffer. Resuspend in fixation/permeabilization buffer, incubate 20-60 minutes at 4°C.
• Intracellular Staining (if applicable): Add antibodies against intracellular targets in permeabilization buffer. Incubate 30 minutes at 4°C protected from light.
• Acquisition: Wash cells twice and resuspend in staining buffer. Acquire data on flow cytometer, collecting minimum 10,000 events per sample.
• Analysis: Use flow cytometry analysis software to gate on viable cells and analyze expression patterns of target markers.

Acceptance Criteria:

• ≥ 70% cell viability in pre-stained sample
• Appropriate positive and negative control staining patterns
• Instrument performance verification using calibration beads

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated experimental approach for implementing a potency assay matrix:

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of potency assay matrices requires carefully selected research reagents that ensure reproducibility, reliability, and regulatory compliance. The following table details key reagent solutions and their functional applications in potency assay development.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Potency Assay Development

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Potency Assay	Application Notes
Automated Immunoassay Systems	ELLA system (Bio-Techne) with VEGF cartridge	Quantitative measurement of secreted factors	Provides precision (CV ≤ 10%) with minimal handling; validated for VEGF quantification [60]
Flow Cytometry Reagents	Fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies, viability dyes	Multiparameter analysis of surface markers and intracellular targets	Enables simultaneous assessment of multiple potency parameters; requires validation for precision and specificity [62]
Reference Materials & Controls	TruCytes custom cell mimics, qualified cell lines	Standardization of assay inputs and performance monitoring	Reduces variability across runs; enables earlier assay development before clinical material availability [46]
Cell Culture Reagents	Defined media supplements, growth factors	Maintenance of target cell lines and primary cells	Requires qualification and documentation for regulatory submissions; impacts assay performance [46]
Cytokine Standards	Recombinant VEGF, IFN-γ, other cytokines	Standard curve generation and assay calibration	Essential for quantitative measurements; should be traceable to reference standards [60]

Regulatory Considerations and Measurement Assurance

Evolving Regulatory Expectations

Regulatory guidance from both the FDA and EMA emphasizes the need for mechanism-of-action-relevant potency assays that quantitatively measure biological activity [46] [9]. The EMA's Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical requirements for investigational ATMPs, effective July 1, 2025, reinforces that potency testing must demonstrate batch-to-batch consistency and reflect the product's biological activity [9]. Similarly, FDA guidance expects manufacturers to develop and validate potency assays to support IND and BLA submissions, with each lot released demonstrating the "specific ability or capacity to achieve the intended therapeutic effect" [46].

A significant challenge in potency assay development is the absence of standardized reference materials, which the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine has cited as a key reason for delays in assay development and regulatory approval [46]. To address this, developers are implementing measurement assurance strategies that include:

• Process flow diagrams to identify variability sources at each assay step [61]
• Reference materials to enable traceability between measurements [61]
• Orthogonal measurements to verify accuracy through different method principles [61]
• Interlaboratory comparison studies to assess reproducibility [61]

Strategic Implementation for Global Development

For developers pursuing global regulatory approval, understanding areas of regulatory convergence and divergence is essential. While significant convergence has occurred in Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) requirements between FDA and EMA, differences remain in areas such as allogeneic donor eligibility determination and phase-appropriate GMP compliance [9]. The multi-cameral, multi-member-state structure of EMA regulation necessitates careful attention to specific requirements that may differ from the more centralized FDA approach [9].

Successful global development strategies include:

• Early regulatory engagement to align on potency assay strategy and matrix design
• Phase-appropriate validation that increases in rigor throughout development
• Incorporation of measurement assurance tools to build confidence in assay results
• Development of customized reference materials when standardized materials are unavailable [46]

The transition from single-attribute measurements to comprehensive assay matrices represents an essential evolution in potency assay strategy for cell therapy ATMPs. This approach provides the scientific rigor and regulatory robustness needed to demonstrate consistent product quality and efficacy throughout clinical development and commercialization. By implementing well-designed assay matrices that incorporate multiple complementary measurements of biological activity, developers can more accurately characterize complex therapy mechanisms, mitigate regulatory risk, and ultimately accelerate the delivery of effective therapies to patients.

The successful implementation of this strategy requires early planning, systematic validation, and ongoing refinement throughout the product lifecycle. As regulatory expectations continue to evolve, particularly with the implementation of new EMA guidelines in 2025, a proactive approach to potency assay development that embraces matrix-based strategies will be increasingly essential for successful ATMP development.

Navigating Donor Eligibility and Testing Disparities Between FDA and EMA Requirements

For developers of cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), navigating the divergent regulatory landscapes of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) presents significant challenges. Donor eligibility determination constitutes a critical component of the process validation lifecycle, directly impacting product safety, quality, and regulatory approval success. Establishing a robust, risk-based control strategy for donor screening and testing is essential for complying with disparate FDA and EMA requirements while ensuring a consistent, safe, and high-quality starting material for cell therapy ATMPs [17] [63].

Regulatory divergence increases complexity for biopharma companies, with differences extending to trial design expectations, approval pathways, and post-market requirements [64]. A recent study examining cell and gene therapy submissions found that only 20% of clinical trial data submitted to both agencies matched, revealing major inconsistencies in regulatory expectations that can lead to approval delays and increased costs [64] [65]. This application note provides a detailed comparison of FDA and EMA donor eligibility requirements and presents standardized experimental protocols to support compliance within a comprehensive process validation framework for cell therapy ATMPs.

Regulatory Landscape Comparison

Organizational Structures and Jurisdictional Authority

The FDA and EMA represent distinct regulatory models with significant implications for donor eligibility requirements. The FDA operates as a single national regulatory authority under the Department of Health and Human Services, setting uniform national standards for donor eligibility that apply across the United States [66]. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) specifically oversees donor eligibility for human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) through the Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) [64].

In contrast, the EMA functions as a central coordinating body that works with national competent authorities across 27 EU member states and the European Economic Area [66]. Rather than replacing national regulators, the EMA coordinates evaluation among member states while allowing countries to manage specific local requirements. This structure creates a more decentralized framework for implementing donor eligibility standards across Europe [66].

Key Regulations and Guidance Documents

The regulatory frameworks for donor eligibility continue to evolve with recent updates from both agencies:

FDA Regulations:

• 21 CFR Part 1271, Subpart C - Estishes baseline requirements for donor eligibility determination, including donor screening and testing [63].
• Draft Guidance (January 2025) - "Recommendations for Determining Eligibility of Donors of HCT/Ps" provides updated non-binding recommendations for implementing regulatory requirements, with specific guidance documents planned for reducing transmission risk of specific communicable diseases including HIV, HBV, HCV, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, sepsis, CMV, and others [63].

EMA Regulations:

• Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 - Establishes the regulatory framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) in the EU [64].
• Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR, 536/2014) - Governs clinical trial applications and procedures since 2022 through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) [64].
• PIC/S Annex 2A - Provides GMP guidance for ATMP manufacture, including donor eligibility considerations [17].
• EMA Guideline on Requirements for Clinical-Stage ATMPs (2025) - Recently adopted guideline addressing requirements for clinical-stage ATMPs [67].

Table 1: FDA vs. EMA Regulatory Authority and Scope

Aspect	FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)	EMA (European Medicines Agency)
Regulatory Model	Single national authority [66]	Central coordinating body working with national authorities [66]
Jurisdiction	United States [66]	European Union (27 member states + EEA) [66]
Key Center/Office	CBER/Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) [64]	ATMP Classification, Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [64]
Donor Eligibility Regulations	21 CFR Part 1271, Subpart C [63]	Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 [64]
Recent Updates	Draft Guidance (Jan 2025) on Donor Eligibility [63]	Clinical Trials Regulation (536/2014), PIC/S Annex 2A [17] [64]

Quantitative Comparison of Donor Eligibility Requirements

Testing Panel Disparities and Sampling Requirements

Substantial differences exist in the required testing panels and sampling approaches between FDA and EMA frameworks. The FDA's 2025 draft guidance outlines recommendations for reducing transmission risk of specific communicable disease agents, including HIV, HBV, HCV, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, sepsis, human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, CMV, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, HTLV, Treponema pallidum, vaccinia virus, West Nile virus, and xenotransplantation risks [63]. The EMA generally follows similar infectious disease testing requirements but often implements them through national competent authorities with potential country-specific variations [64].

Sampling requirements demonstrate significant divergence, particularly for cell therapy ATMPs. The FDA typically requires testing on blood samples collected from the donor at the time of recovery, while EMA regulations may accept different sample types based on national requirements [63] [64]. For cadaveric donors, both agencies require testing on blood samples, but the FDA specifies that if an adequate blood sample is not available, other tissue samples may be used, provided their suitability for testing is demonstrated [63].

Table 2: Comparative Testing Requirements for Donor Eligibility

Parameter	FDA Requirements	EMA Requirements
HIV Testing	Required (HIV-1 and HIV-2) [63]	Required (similar scope) [64]
Hepatitis B & C	HBV (HBsAg, anti-HBc, HBV NAT), HCV (anti-HCV, HCV NAT) [63]	Similar panel, potential national variations [64]
Mycobacterium tuberculosis	Recommended screening with approved tests [63]	Required with potential for national variations [64]
CMV Testing	Recommended for appropriate donor-recipient matching [63]	Often required with country-specific implementation [64]
Syphilis	Required (Treponema pallidum) [63]	Required [64]
West Nile Virus	Recommended based on seasonal activity and donor exposure [63]	Varies by national authority [64]
HTLV	Required for living donors, recommended for cadaveric when adequate sample [63]	Required in most member states [64]
Chlamydia & Gonorrhea	Recommended screening (Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae) [63]	Varies by national authority [64]
Sample Type	Blood sample preferred; alternative tissues if blood unavailable [63]	Blood samples typically required [64]

Donor Screening and Eligibility Determination Timelines

Significant procedural differences exist in how donor eligibility determinations are documented and implemented. The FDA requires that donor eligibility determination be completed before clinical use, with specific requirements for screening activities that must include a donor medical history interview and physical assessment when possible [63]. The EMA typically follows similar principles but allows for more flexibility through national implementations, particularly for emergency situations [64].

Review timelines for regulatory submissions differ substantially between agencies. The FDA generally reviews standard biologics license applications (BLAs) within approximately 10 months, or around 6 months for priority review, while the EMA's standard review under the centralized procedure takes roughly 210 days, often extending to a year or more due to "clock stops" for additional information requests [66] [64]. These timeline differences necessitate careful planning for global development programs.

Table 3: Donor Screening and Review Timeline Comparisons

Screening Component	FDA Requirements	EMA/NCA Requirements
Donor History Interview	Required review of medical records and social history [63]	Similar requirements with potential national variations [64]
Physical Assessment	Required for living donors when possible [63]	Similar requirements [64]
Eligibility Determination	Must be completed before clinical use [63]	Similar principle with potential emergency use variations [64]
Documentation Retention	Required per 21 CFR 1271.55 [63]	Varies by member state per national regulations [64]
Standard Review Timeline	~10 months (6 months Priority Review) [66] [64]	~210 days (often extends to 1+ year with clock stops) [66] [64]
Accelerated Pathways	Accelerated Approval, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review, RMAT [66] [64]	Accelerated Assessment, Conditional MA, PRIME Scheme [66] [64]

Experimental Protocols for Donor Eligibility Testing

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Donor Screening and Testing Workflow

This protocol establishes a standardized approach to donor eligibility determination that addresses both FDA and EMA requirements, facilitating compliance for global cell therapy ATMP development.

4.1.1 Principle Donor eligibility is determined through a comprehensive assessment including donor medical history screening, social behavior evaluation, physical examination (when possible), and laboratory testing for relevant communicable diseases using FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked tests [63].

4.1.2 Scope Applies to all donors of cells, tissues, and cellular/tissue-based products used in the manufacture of cell therapy ATMPs, including allogeneic and autologous donors where applicable [63].

4.1.3 Materials and Equipment

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Donor Eligibility Testing

Reagent/Kit	Function/Application	Regulatory Status
FDA-Licensed/CE-Marked NAT HIV-1/HIV-2	Detection of HIV-1 and HIV-2 RNA/DNA	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]
HBsAg, anti-HBc, HBV NAT Assays	Detection of Hepatitis B surface antigen, core antibody, and nucleic acid	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]
Anti-HCV, HCV NAT Assays	Detection of Hepatitis C antibody and nucleic acid	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]
Treponema pallidum Assay	Detection of syphilis infection	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]
Anti-HTLV-I/II Assay	Detection of Human T-Lymphotropic Virus antibodies	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]
CMV IgG/IgM or NAT Assay	Detection of Cytomegalovirus infection	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]
Blood Collection Tubes (EDTA)	Sample collection for virological testing	Medical device certification required [63]
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit	Isolation of nucleic acids from donor samples	Quality system requirements [63]
Mycobacterium tuberculosis Test	Detection of TB infection (IGRA or TST)	FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked [63]

4.1.4 Procedure

• Donor Identification and Consent

  • Obtain informed consent using institution-approved consent forms
  • Assign unique donor identifier to maintain traceability

• Donor Medical History Screening

  • Conduct comprehensive donor interview reviewing:
    • Medical history including infections, malignancies, autoimmune disorders
    • Social history assessing risk factors for communicable diseases
    • Travel history to regions with endemic diseases
    • Exposure history to communicable diseases [63]

• Physical Assessment (Living Donors)

  • Perform physical examination focusing on signs of communicable diseases
  • Document any physical findings that may suggest infection [63]

• Sample Collection

  • Collect blood samples using aseptic technique:
    • Minimum 10mL for serological testing (serum tube)
    • Minimum 10mL for NAT testing (EDTA tube) [63]

• Communicable Disease Testing

  • Perform testing using FDA-licensed/approved or CE-marked tests:
    • HIV-1/HIV-2 NAT and serology
    • HBV (HBsAg, anti-HBc, NAT)
    • HCV (anti-HCV, NAT)
    • Treponema pallidum (syphilis)
    • HTLV-I/II (for living donors)
    • CMV (IgG/IgM or NAT)
    • Additional tests based on donor history [63]

• Eligibility Determination

  • Review all screening and testing results
  • Determine eligibility based on absence of risk factors and negative test results
  • Document determination in donor record [63]

4.1.5 Acceptance Criteria

• Donor eligibility requires:
  • No identified risk factors per medical history screening
  • No physical findings suggestive of infection (living donors)
  • Negative results for all required communicable disease tests [63]

Diagram 1: Donor Screening and Testing Workflow

Protocol 2: Risk-Based Eligibility Determination for Exceptional Circumstances

This protocol addresses situations where standard eligibility determination cannot be fully completed, outlining a risk-based approach for managing exceptional circumstances while maintaining patient safety.

4.2.1 Principle In certain emergency situations or when standard testing cannot be completed, a risk-based determination may be applied, documenting justification and implementing additional safety measures [63].

4.2.2 Scope Applies to exceptional circumstances where complete donor eligibility determination cannot be performed prior to clinical use, including situations where:

• Adequate donor sample is not available for required testing
• Emergency use situations require rapid availability
• Testing results are indeterminate or unavailable [63]

4.2.3 Procedure

• Situation Assessment

  • Document reason complete eligibility determination cannot be performed
  • Identify which components can be completed
  • Assess potential risks to recipient based on available information

• Risk Mitigation Strategy

  • Implement additional testing if possible
  • Consider pathogen reduction/inactivation methods
  • Enhanced post-transplant monitoring and prophylaxis
  • Document risk-benefit justification [63]

• Documentation and Traceability

  • Maintain complete records of circumstances
  • Document risk mitigation measures implemented
  • Ensure traceability for follow-up if additional information becomes available [63]

4.2.4 Acceptance Criteria

• Use of non-eligible donors requires:
  • Documented justification of emergency situation
  • Implementation of appropriate risk mitigation strategies
  • Informed consent discussing potential risks [63]

Process Validation Integration

Incorporating Donor Eligibility into the Validation Lifecycle

Integrating donor eligibility requirements into the overall process validation strategy for cell therapy ATMPs is essential for maintaining product quality and regulatory compliance. A risk-based approach to validation provides manufacturers with the flexibility necessary to adapt controls while ensuring critical quality attributes are maintained [17].

The phase-appropriate validation strategy should adapt the level of rigor and documentation based on development stage, from early clinical phases through commercial marketing authorization. As stated by Biana Torres, Senior Director of Quality Assurance at Encoded Therapeutics, "Ultimately, the purpose of a risk-based approach is to understand what's critical to your product quality, patient safety, and product variability. This understanding helps you to focus on those elements to be able to ensure you have manufactured a safe product." [17]

For donor eligibility specifically, process validation should demonstrate that:

• Donor screening procedures consistently identify risk factors
• Testing methods are validated for their intended use
• Eligibility determination procedures are robust and reproducible
• Exception management procedures maintain safety [17]

Control Strategy Implementation

Establishing an effective control strategy for donor eligibility requires addressing critical process parameters and quality attributes throughout the cell therapy lifecycle. The control strategy should encompass:

Analytical Method Validation

• Validation of testing methods for communicable disease markers
• Qualification of alternative methods when standard testing cannot be used
• Verification of sample suitability for testing [17]

Process Controls

• Standardized procedures for donor screening and interviewing
• Environmental controls for sample collection and handling
• Training and qualification of personnel performing screening [17]

Supply Chain Controls

• Temperature monitoring during sample transport
• Chain of identity and chain of custody documentation
• Supplier qualification for testing laboratories [17]

Diagram 2: Process Validation Integration Framework

Navigating the disparities between FDA and EMA donor eligibility requirements demands a systematic, well-documented approach integrated throughout the process validation lifecycle for cell therapy ATMPs. By implementing the standardized protocols and comparative analyses presented in this application note, researchers and drug development professionals can establish a robust framework for donor eligibility determination that accommodates both regulatory systems.

The risk-based validation approach emphasized in recent FDA draft guidance and EMA regulations provides a flexible pathway for addressing regulatory divergences while maintaining focus on critical quality attributes and patient safety [17] [63]. As global regulators push toward harmonization through initiatives like the Collaboration on Gene Therapies Global Pilot and FDA's START program, developers should maintain vigilance in monitoring evolving requirements [65].

Successful global development strategies will incorporate early engagement with both agencies through FDA Type B meetings and EMA Scientific Advice, leveraging expedited pathways like RMAT and PRIME where appropriate, and implementing comprehensive control strategies that address the specific requirements of both jurisdictions [64]. By adopting these practices, sponsors can optimize their regulatory strategy, minimize delays, and accelerate patient access to innovative cell therapies while maintaining the highest standards of safety and efficacy.

Analytical Method Validation and Demonstrating Comparability

The development and validation of analytical methods are critical pillars in demonstrating the quality, safety, and efficacy of cell therapy advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). Within this framework, manufacturers must strategically navigate the use of two distinct types of methods: compendial methods, which are standardized procedures described in official pharmacopoeias, and product-specific methods, which are custom-developed to address the unique characteristics of a novel therapy [35]. The fundamental requirement for compendial methods is verification—confirming that the established procedure works as intended under the specific conditions of the laboratory and with the particular product [35]. In contrast, product-specific methods, which lack a pre-existing monograph, require full validation to demonstrate they are fit for their intended purpose [21] [35].

The choice between these methods is not merely a technical decision but a core component of the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) strategy, with significant implications for regulatory approval and patient safety [30] [35]. This document provides detailed application notes and protocols to guide researchers and drug development professionals in the justification and implementation of these analytical methods within the context of process validation for cell therapy ATMPs.

Regulatory Framework and Method Selection Strategy

Regulatory Expectations and a Risk-Based Approach

Health Authorities strongly encourage the use of compendial methods when applicable, particularly for foundational safety testing such as sterility and endotoxin analyses [35]. This preference is rooted in the standardized nature of these methods and their proven reliability. However, the complex and living nature of cell therapies often necessitates the development of novel, product-specific methods to accurately measure identity, purity, and potency [21] [35]. This approach is supported by a risk-based framework, which provides manufacturers the flexibility to adapt the best controls to the process while ensuring all critical aspects for product quality and patient safety are met [17].

A risk-based approach is central to this decision-making process. It focuses resources on understanding and controlling what is critical to product quality, patient safety, and managing product variability [17]. The application of this approach should be closely related to the provisions of the clinical trial authorization, resulting in a comprehensive documentation package that includes risk analyses, assessments, and reports [68].

A Strategic Framework for Method Selection

The following workflow outlines the decision-making process for selecting and implementing compendial versus product-specific methods, integrating key considerations such as compendial availability, product uniqueness, and the stage of development.

Implementation Protocols

Protocol for Compendial Method Verification

This protocol describes the procedure for verifying a compendial method for use with a specific cell therapy ATMP, using the example of a sterility test.

1.0 Objective: To verify that the compendial sterility test method (e.g., Ph. Eur. 2.6.1) is suitable for detecting contamination in the presence of the specific cell therapy drug product, which may have inherent antimicrobial properties.

2.0 Materials and Reagents:

• Test Sample: Cell therapy drug product batch, known to be sterile.
• Growth Media: Fluid Thioglycollate Medium (FTM) and Soybean-Casein Digest Medium (SCDM).
• Challenge Microorganisms: Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 9027), Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6633), Clostridium sporogenes (ATCC 19404), Candida albicans (ATCC 10231), Aspergillus brasiliensis (ATCC 16404).
• Neutralizing Agents: If required, to negate the effects of any antimicrobial properties in the product (e.g., dilution, specific neutralizers).

3.0 Experimental Procedure: 3.1 Sample Preparation: Aseptically prepare the cell therapy drug product according to its standard protocol. 3.2 Method Suitability Test (Bacteriostasis/Fungistasis Test):

• Inoculation: Inoculate separate containers of FTM and SCDM with a small volume ( 3.4. Incubation and Examination: Incall all test and control containers at the specified temperatures (FTM at 30-35°C, SCDM at 20-25°C) for up to 14 days. Examine the containers for evidence of microbial growth visually at intervals (e.g., days 3, 7, and 14). 3.5 Acceptance Criteria: The test is considered verified if the method is shown to be free of bacteriostatic and fungistatic properties. This is demonstrated by the growth of challenge microorganisms in the presence of the product being comparable to the growth in the control vials (no product), typically within a 1.0 log10 difference, and all growth occurs within the prescribed time frame.

4.0 Documentation: The entire process, including raw data, calculations, and a conclusion on the method's suitability, must be documented in a verification report.

Protocol for Product-Specific Potency Assay Validation

This protocol outlines the development and phase-appropriate validation of a flow cytometry-based potency assay for a Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell product, measuring the percentage of CD3+ CAR+ cells.

1.0 Objective: To validate an analytical method for quantifying the percentage of CD3+ CAR+ cells in a final drug product according to ICH Q2(R2) principles, ensuring it is specific, accurate, precise, and linear over the specified range.

2.0 Materials and Reagents:

• Test Samples: CAR T-cell drug product at various concentrations.
• Reference Standard: A well-characterized cell batch (e.g., from an Intermediate Cell Bank) or a commercial CD3+ cell standard.
• Antibodies: Fluorescently labeled anti-CD3 antibody, fluorescently labeled protein (e.g., F(ab')2) for CAR detection, relevant isotype control antibodies.
• Buffer: Flow cytometry staining buffer (e.g., PBS with 1% BSA).
• Equipment: Flow cytometer, calibrated prior to use.

3.0 Experimental Procedure for Validation: 3.1 Specificity:

• Test: Stain the CAR T-cell sample with the anti-CD3 and anti-CAR antibodies.
• Control 1: Stain the sample with isotype control antibodies to establish background fluorescence.
• Control 2: If available, stain a non-transduced T-cell sample (lacking the CAR) with the same antibody panel to confirm the CAR-specific signal. 3.2 Accuracy and Precision:
• Sample Preparation: Prepare a minimum of three concentration levels (e.g., low, mid, high) covering the expected range of %CD3+CAR+ cells by diluting the drug product with unstained cells or buffer.
• Analysis: For each concentration level, analyze a minimum of n=6 replicates independently. Repeat this on three separate days (inter-day precision).
• Calculation: Calculate the mean, standard deviation (SD), and % relative standard deviation (%RSD) for each concentration level for both intra-day and inter-day results. Accuracy can be assessed by comparing the mean measured value to a known or theoretical value if available. 3.3 Linearity and Range:
• Sample Preparation: Prepare a series of at least five samples with a range of %CD3+CAR+ cells (e.g., from 10% to 90%) by spiking known numbers of CAR+ cells into unstained cells.
• Analysis: Analyze each sample in duplicate or triplicate.
• Calculation: Plot the measured %CD3+CAR+ values against the expected values. Perform linear regression analysis to determine the correlation coefficient (R²), slope, and y-intercept.

4.0 Acceptance Criteria:

• Specificity: A clear, distinct population of CD3+CAR+ cells should be identifiable with minimal interference from controls.
• Precision: The %RSD for the method should be ≤15% for the mid and high concentrations, and ≤20% for the low concentration.
• Linearity: The R² value from the linear regression should be ≥0.98.

5.0 Documentation: A full validation report must be generated, including all raw data, statistical analyses, and a statement of the validated range and performance characteristics of the method.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The development and execution of robust analytical methods rely on a foundation of high-quality, well-characterized reagents and materials. The table below details key solutions used in the featured experiments and the broader field of cell therapy analytics.

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Cell Therapy Analytical Methods

Item	Function/Application	Example in Protocols
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Cell surface and intracellular marker detection for identity, purity, and potency assays.	Anti-CD3 antibody for T-cell identification; anti-CAR reagent for transgene expression [35] [69].
Cell Culture Media & Supplements	Supports cell viability and function during assay execution, particularly in long-term or functional assays.	Used in potency assays to maintain cells; specific cytokines (e.g., IL-2) may be added to stimulate cells [32].
Reference Standards & Controls	Serves as a benchmark for assay performance, qualification, and validation; ensures consistency and comparability across batches and time [21].	Well-characterized cell batch from an Intermediate Cell Bank for a potency assay; isotype controls for flow cytometry [21] [35].
Challenge Microorganisms	Used in method verification/validation to demonstrate the ability of sterility or mycoplasma tests to detect contamination.	S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, C. albicans etc., for sterility test method suitability [69].
Cryopreservation Media	Preserves cell-based reference standards and critical test samples for later analytical use, ensuring material stability.	Contains cryoprotectants like DMSO; used for storing in-process control samples or validation panels [32].

Analytical Method Lifecycle and Comparability

Adopting a lifecycle approach to analytical methods is crucial for successful process validation and commercialization. Methods transition from early development into GMP manufacturing and are subject to continual improvement managed through formal change control protocols [21]. The level of method qualification and validation should be phase-appropriate, increasing in rigor as the product advances from early clinical trials towards commercial application [21] [35].

In early phases, demonstrating control of test methods and providing evidence of analytical method suitability is acceptable [35]. However, by the time pivotal trial efficacy data is collected, each release assay must be qualified, and all non-compendial assays must be fully validated to support a successful marketing application [35]. This lifecycle management is governed by a holistic quality risk management process, as outlined in ICH Q9(R1), which is a cornerstone of ATMP validation strategies [17].

A critical aspect of the lifecycle is managing assay comparability. When methods undergo significant changes or when process changes are introduced, analytical bridging studies are required [21]. Prudent storage and use of retained samples from all key process lots are essential for these studies [21]. Furthermore, the development of a relevant and quantitative potency assay that reflects the product's mechanism of action is considered one of the most challenging yet vital activities in ATMP development and should be initiated as early as possible [21] [35].

The strategic selection and rigorous implementation of compendial and product-specific methods form the analytical backbone of process validation for cell therapy ATMPs. A successful CMC strategy hinges on a science- and risk-based approach, where compendial methods provide a foundation of standardization for common quality attributes, while bespoke product-specific methods are developed to address the unique biological functions of these transformative therapies. By adhering to phase-appropriate validation principles and maintaining a lifecycle perspective on analytical procedures, developers can build a robust data package that demonstrates consistent product quality, ensures patient safety, and facilitates regulatory approval.

The development of cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) presents unique challenges in analytical validation. A phase-appropriate strategy is critical for navigating the journey from early clinical trials to commercial marketing applications. This approach balances the need for scientific rigor with practical constraints of timeline and budget, ensuring patient safety while building the robust data package required for regulatory approval. For cell therapies, which are often living, complex products, analytical methods are not merely quality controls but fundamental tools that confirm the biological mechanism of action and ensure consistent clinical performance [36] [35].

The core principle of phase-appropriateness involves progressively increasing method rigor as the product advances through clinical development. Early-phase methods must be sufficiently reliable to inform safety decisions, while late-phase methods require full validation to demonstrate process control and product consistency for commercial application [35]. This structured progression mitigates the risk of costly method redevelopment and product comparability studies later in development, which can delay life-saving therapies from reaching patients [36].

The Phase-Appropriate Analytical Journey

The analytical validation lifecycle for cell therapies is segmented into distinct stages, each with defined objectives and regulatory expectations. The following workflow diagram illustrates the logical progression and key milestones from method development through to commercial validation.

Detailed Phase Progression and Regulatory Requirements

The analytical strategy evolves significantly throughout the product development lifecycle. The table below summarizes the key objectives and regulatory expectations for each phase.

Table 1: Phase-Appropriate Analytical Validation Requirements

Development Phase	Primary Analytical Objectives	Level of Validation	Key Regulatory Guidelines & Expectations
Pre-IND & Phase 1	Ensure patient safety, support initial dose escalation, monitor product stability [36] [35].	Method Qualification: Demonstrate precision, reliability, and suitability for intended use [35].	FDA "fit-for-purpose" facility standards; emphasis on patient safety and sterility assurance [70] [35].
Phase 2	Support pivotal trial design, enable process changes, ensure process consistency, build product and process understanding [35].	Partial Validation & Optimization: Refine critical process parameters, tighten specifications, perform robustness testing [70] [35].	Process consistency expected; phase-appropriate validation required; quality of materials must increase [70].
Phase 3 & BLA/MAA Submission	Demonstrate commercial manufacturing control, ensure batch-to-batch consistency, support shelf-life definition [35].	Full Validation: Complete validation per ICH Q2(R2) for accuracy, precision, specificity, range, robustness [35].	Fully GMP-compliant, validated processes; demonstration of readiness for commercial supply [70] [35].

Experimental Protocols for Key Analytical Methods

Protocol: Development and Qualification of a Cell-Based Potency Assay

1.0 Purpose To establish a qualified, mechanism-of-action (MoA)-aligned potency assay for a cell therapy product during Phase 1 clinical development. This functional assay is critical for lot release and stability testing [35].

2.0 Scope This protocol applies to the initial qualification of the In Vitro T-cell Cytotoxicity Assay for CT-001, an autologous CD19-targeting CAR-T cell therapy.

3.0 Principle The assay measures the specific lytic activity of CT-001 against CD19-positive target cells. The percentage of specific cytotoxicity is quantified using a luminescent readout of residual adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in viable target cells, which correlates with the product's biological activity [35].

4.0 Materials and Equipment

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Potency Assay

Item	Function/Description	Justification for Use
CD19+ Target Cell Line (e.g., NALM-6)	Expresses target antigen for CAR recognition	Ensures assay is MoA-aligned; provides consistent antigen source [35].
CD19- Negative Control Cell Line	Controls for non-specific cytotoxicity	Distinguishes specific from non-specific killing [35].
CellTiter-Glo 2.0 Assay	Quantifies ATP as a marker of viable cells	Provides a sensitive, reproducible, and linear luminescent signal.
Reference Standard (CT-001-RS-01)	Serves as an assay control for inter-run comparison	Enables normalization and trending of performance over time [35].
Secondary Potency Assays (e.g., Cytokine Secretion)	Orthogonal method to measure T-cell activation	Builds confidence in potency results through complementary data [70].

5.0 Procedure

• Effector Cell Preparation: Thaw CT-001 drug product and serially dilute in culture medium to establish effector-to-target (E:T) ratios from 20:1 to 1.25:1.
• Target Cell Preparation: Harvest and count CD19+ and CD19- target cells. Adjust concentration to 1x10^5 cells/mL.
• Co-culture Setup: Plate 50 μL of target cells (5,000 cells/well) in a 96-well white wall plate. Add 50 μL of each CT-001 dilution to corresponding wells. Include target cell-only (background control) and culture medium-only (blank) controls. Perform in triplicate.
• Incubation: Incubate plates for 24 hours at 37°C, 5% CO2.
• Luminescence Measurement: Equilibrate plate to room temperature for 30 minutes. Add 100 μL of CellTiter-Glo 2.0 reagent to each well. Orbital shake for 2 minutes to induce cell lysis. Incubate for 10 minutes at room temperature. Record luminescence (RLU) on a plate reader.
• Data Analysis: Calculate percent cytotoxicity for each E:T ratio using the formula: % Cytotoxicity = [1 - (RLU Experimental Well / RLU Target Cell Control)] * 100. Plot % cytotoxicity versus E:T ratio and determine the EC50 or other relevant potency units using a 4-parameter logistic curve fit.

6.0 Method Qualification Parameters For Phase 1, the following parameters must be assessed:

• Precision: Repeatability (n=6) and intermediate precision (different analysts/days) with %CV ≤ 25%.
• Specificity: Cytotoxicity against CD19+ targets must be significantly greater (e.g., >3x) than against CD19- targets.
• Linearity & Range: Demonstrate a linear dose-response over the tested E:T ratios (e.g., R^2 > 0.95).
• Robustness: Deliberate, small variations in key parameters (e.g., incubation time ±1 hour) should not invalidate the assay.

Protocol: Validation of a qPCR Assay for Vector Copy Number

1.0 Purpose To fully validate a quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay for determining vector copy number (VCN) in a genetically modified cell therapy product, supporting a BLA submission.

2.0 Scope This protocol describes the validation of the VCN assay per ICH Q2(R2) guidelines for the final drug product of CT-001 [35].

3.0 Principle A TaqMan-based qPCR assay simultaneously amplifies a sequence from the integrated vector and a single-copy reference gene (e.g., RPPH1) in genomic DNA. The VCN is calculated from the difference in threshold cycles (ΔCt) between the vector and reference gene signals, using a standard curve from cell lines with known copy numbers.

4.0 Procedure

• Standard Curve Preparation: Use a reference cell line containing a single integrated copy of the vector per genome. Create a 5-point standard curve by serially diluting the genomic DNA from this cell line (e.g., 50 ng/μL to 3.125 ng/μL).
• Sample Analysis: Test 100 ng of genomic DNA from the CT-001 drug product in triplicate.
• qPCR Run: Perform amplification on a qualified qPCR instrument using validated primer/probe sets. Include no-template controls (NTCs).
• Data Analysis: The VCN is calculated by the instrument software based on the standard curve, relative to the single-copy reference gene.

5.0 Validation Parameters & Acceptance Criteria The following table summarizes the validation plan and criteria.

Table 3: Validation Parameters for qPCR VCN Assay per ICH Q2(R2)

Validation Parameter	Experimental Design	Acceptance Criteria
Accuracy/Recovery	Spike known quantities of vector plasmid into negative control genomic DNA.	Mean recovery of 80–120%.
Precision	Repeatability: Analyze 6 replicates of a single sample. Intermediate Precision: Different analyst/day.	Repeatability: %CV ≤ 15%. Intermediate Precision: %CV ≤ 20%.
Specificity	Test DNA from a non-transduced cell line (negative control).	No amplification in negative control, or Ct value >5 cycles later than positive sample.
Linearity & Range	Analyze standard curve from 3.125 ng/μL to 50 ng/μL DNA.	R^2 ≥ 0.98.
Robustness	Deliberately vary annealing temperature (±2°C) and DNA input (±20%).	The method remains unaffected by small variations.
Limit of Quantification (LOQ)	Determine the lowest DNA concentration where precision (CV ≤ 25%) and accuracy (80–120%) are maintained.	LOQ must be below the lowest intended sample concentration.

Navigating Regulatory Frameworks and Complexities

Engagement with Health Authorities

Early and strategic engagement with regulators is crucial for navigating uncertainties, especially for novel products. In the United States, sponsors can utilize Pre-IND meetings and formal Requests for Designation (RFD) with the Office of Combination Products [70]. In the European Union, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) provides classification advice and recommendations [70]. Regulators expect sponsors to have a clear justification for their development strategy and analytical approaches, including the use of orthogonal methods to build confidence in critical quality attributes like potency [70].

The Critical Role of Potency Assays

Potency testing remains one of the most challenging aspects of cell therapy CMC and is a common deficiency identified by regulators [35]. The FDA emphasizes the importance of developing relevant biological assays that accurately measure the product's specific mechanism of action [35]. Since no single method may fully capture a cell therapy's complex biology, a potency assay matrix that connects product quality to biological function is often necessary to build regulatory confidence, guide development decisions, and support comparability assessments [36].

The following diagram illustrates the strategic components and logical flow involved in developing a comprehensive potency assurance strategy.

For researchers and drug development professionals working with cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), analytical method validation represents a critical gateway between process development and clinical application. The recent adoption of ICH Q2(R2) in November 2023 provides an updated regulatory framework for validating analytical procedures, emphasizing a risk-based approach particularly relevant to the unique challenges of cell-based therapies [71]. Unlike traditional biologics, cell therapy ATMPs present distinctive validation challenges due to their inherent biological variability, complex mechanisms of action, and frequently limited batch sizes and sample availability [21].

The validation of accuracy, precision, specificity, and robustness ensures that analytical methods consistently yield reliable data on Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs), forming the foundation for a scientifically sound control strategy. For cell therapy products, this translates to confidently measuring attributes like potency, identity, purity, and viability throughout the product lifecycle [30]. This document outlines detailed application notes and experimental protocols for validating these four key parameters, framed within the specific context of cell therapy ATMP research and aligned with the principles of ICH Q2(R2) and the lifecycle approach introduced in ICH Q14 [13].

Core Validation Parameters: Protocols and Application Notes

Accuracy: Protocol and Experimental Design

Accuracy is defined as the closeness of agreement between an accepted reference value and the value found by the analytical method [72]. For cell therapy ATMPs, establishing accuracy is often complicated by the lack of well-characterized reference standards and the complex biological nature of the analyte, such as viable cells with a specific function.

• Experimental Protocol for Cell Potency Assay:
  • Spiked Recovery Preparation: Prepare a homogeneous pool of the cell therapy drug product. Spike this pool with known, quantified numbers of cells exhibiting the target potency (e.g., cytokine-producing cells, differentiated cells). Use three concentration levels (e.g., 70%, 100%, 130% of the target potency) to cover the specified range of the assay.
  • Sample Analysis: Analyze each spiked level using the potency assay (e.g., flow cytometry, ELISA, or a functional co-culture assay) with a minimum of three replicates per concentration level (n=9 total determinations).
  • Data Calculation and Acceptance: Calculate the percent recovery for each sample using the formula: % Recovery = (Measured Value / Expected Value) * 100. The mean recovery at each concentration level should be within established, justified limits, often 70-130% for biological assays, with the relative standard deviation (%RSD) meeting pre-defined criteria [73].

Table 1: Example Accuracy Study Design for a Cell Viability Assay

Parameter	Level 1 (70%)	Level 2 (100%)	Level 3 (130%)
Theoretical Live Cell Count	7.0 x 10^5	1.0 x 10^6	1.3 x 10^6
Mean Measured Count (n=3)	6.9 x 10^5	1.05 x 10^6	1.28 x 10^6
% Recovery	98.6%	105%	98.5%
Acceptance Criteria	70-130%	70-130%	70-130%

Precision: Protocol and Experimental Design

Precision, the closeness of agreement between a series of measurements from multiple sampling of the same homogeneous sample, is assessed at three levels: repeatability, intermediate precision, and reproducibility [73]. For cell therapies, this validates that the method can generate consistent results despite the biological heterogeneity of the starting material.

• Experimental Protocol for Repeatability and Intermediate Precision:
  • Repeatability (Intra-assay Precision): A single analyst uses one set of equipment and reagents to prepare and analyze six independent samples from a single, homogeneous batch of the cell therapy product at 100% of the test concentration. This is performed within one operational session.
  • Intermediate Precision: A second analyst, using a different HPLC system (or equivalent core instrument) and independently prepared reagents, repeats the repeatability experiment on a different day. The experimental design should allow monitoring of the effects of different analysts, equipment, and days.
  • Data Analysis: Calculate the %RSD for the results from the repeatability study. For intermediate precision, compare the results from the two analysts. The %RSD for repeatability should be ≤ 15-20% for biological methods, and a statistical test (e.g., F-test for variances, t-test for means) should show no significant difference between the two sets of data in the intermediate precision study [73].

Table 2: Precision Acceptance Criteria for a Cell-Based Impurity Assay

Precision Level	Experimental Setup	Acceptance Criteria
Repeatability	Single analyst, day, and instrument	%RSD ≤ 20%
Intermediate Precision	Two analysts, different days, different instruments	No significant difference (p > 0.05) between means; Combined %RSD ≤ 25%

Specificity: Protocol and Experimental Design

Specificity is the ability to assess unequivocally the analyte in the presence of components that may be expected to be present, such as impurities, degradants, or matrix components [72]. For cell therapies, the "matrix" is exceptionally complex, including dead cells, cell debris, residual media components, and cryoprotectants.

• Experimental Protocol for Flow Cytometry Identity Assay:
  • Interference Testing: Analyze the following samples using the validated flow cytometry panel for a cell surface identity marker:
    • Sample A: Target cell population (positive control).
    • Sample B: A sample matrix spiked with known interfering substances (e.g., residual beads from processing, high levels of dead cells, irrelevant cell types present in the product).
    • Sample C: A sample known to be negative for the target marker (negative control).
  • Forced Degradation: Stress the cell therapy product (e.g., by heat, freeze-thaw, or extended hold times) to generate degraded samples. Analyze these samples to ensure the method can still distinguish the identity marker on viable, functional cells versus stressed or apoptotic cells.
  • Data Analysis: Specificity is demonstrated by a clear positive signal in Sample A, no significant false-positive signal in Sample B, and a negative signal in Sample C. The use of peak purity assessment via photodiode-array detection or mass spectrometry is recommended for chromatographic methods to confirm a single component is being measured [73].

Robustness: Protocol and Experimental Design

Robustness is a measure of the method's capacity to remain unaffected by small, deliberate variations in method parameters, indicating its reliability during normal usage [72]. For cell-based assays, which are highly sensitive to environmental and procedural fluctuations, this is a critical validation step.

• Experimental Protocol for a Cell-Based Potency Assay:
  • Identify Critical Parameters: Through risk assessment (e.g., Ishikawa diagram), identify method parameters susceptible to minor variations. Examples include incubation time (± 2 hours), incubation temperature (± 1°C), antibody concentration (± 10%), or cell staining volume (± 10%).
  • Experimental Design: Use a Design of Experiments (DoE) approach to efficiently evaluate the effect of these parameters and their potential interactions. A full or fractional factorial design is typically employed.
  • Analysis: Analyze samples at 100% of the test concentration while varying the identified parameters within their planned ranges. Monitor the impact on key performance indicators, such as the reported potency value and the assay's precision (%RSD).
  • Establish System Suitability: Based on the results, define system suitability criteria to ensure the assay performs as validated each time it is executed. The method is considered robust if the variations do not lead to a significant change in the results compared to the standard conditions [72] [73].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Cell Therapy Analytical Validation

Item	Function & Application in Validation
Characterized Cell Bank	Serves as a consistent, homogeneous source of material for accuracy (spiking), precision, and robustness studies. Critical for establishing a baseline for method performance [21].
Interim Reference Standard	A well-characterized sample used as a comparator for accuracy and to track assay performance over time. Essential when qualified reference standards are unavailable, which is common for novel ATMPs [21].
Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels	Key reagents for assessing specificity, identity, and purity. Validation requires demonstrating that antibodies are specific for their target epitopes and do not cross-react with other cells or matrix components in the product [30].
Cell Culture Media & Reagents	Used in functional potency assays (e.g., cytokine stimulation, differentiation assays). The robustness of the method can be highly dependent on the quality and consistency of these reagents [30].
Viability & Apoptosis Markers	Dyes and assays (e.g., 7-AAD, Annexin V) used to distinguish live, dead, and dying cells. Their performance is integral to validating the specificity and accuracy of potency and identity assays.

Visualizing the Validation Workflow and Strategy

The following diagrams outline the logical sequence for method validation and the risk-based strategy for evaluating robustness, as recommended by ICH Q2(R2) and applicable to cell therapy ATMPs.

Diagram 1: Analytical Method Validation Workflow

Diagram 2: Risk-Based Approach to Robustness

Successful compliance with ICH Q2(R2) for cell therapy ATMPs requires a holistic and phase-appropriate strategy. The validation of accuracy, precision, specificity, and robustness is not a mere checkbox exercise but a fundamental activity that builds confidence in the product's quality, safety, and efficacy. Given the complexity and novelty of these therapies, early and frequent dialogue with regulatory agencies is highly recommended to align on validation strategies, especially for critical yet challenging assays like potency [21]. By implementing these detailed protocols and adopting a risk-based, science-driven approach as outlined in ICH Q2(R2) and ICH Q14, researchers and developers can navigate the complex ATMP landscape more effectively, ensuring robust analytical methods that support the delivery of transformative therapies to patients.

For Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), potency assays are not merely a regulatory requirement but a fundamental pillar of product quality control. Potency is defined as the quantitative measure of the biological activity of a drug product, which is expected to reflect its mechanism of action (MoA) and, ideally, correlate with its clinical response [74]. Unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, the complexity of cell and gene therapies means that a single potency assay often fails to capture the multifaceted biological activity of the living product. Consequently, the validation of these assays presents unique challenges for researchers and developers. A robust potency assay must be MoA-reflective, precise, and accurate to ensure that it can reliably demonstrate the functional integrity of the product and guarantee consistency between manufacturing batches [75]. This application note provides a detailed framework for the development and validation of potency assays that accurately reflect complex biological mechanisms of action within the context of ATMP process validation.

Linking Mechanism of Action to Potency Assay Design

Foundational Principles

The initial step in developing a meaningful potency assay is a deep understanding of the product's MoA. The specific biological action by which a cell therapy product achieves its therapeutic effect must form the basis of the potency assay [76]. For example, a Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell product primarily mediates its effect through target-specific cytotoxicity, whereas Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) for Crohn's disease may function through immunomodulation and trophic factor secretion [77]. A well-defined MoA informs the selection of Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) that the potency assay must measure.

Assay Selection and a Multi-Assay Approach

Given the complexity of ATMPs, a matrix of assays is often recommended, as it is frequently difficult to select a single assay that adequately assesses product quality and consistency while predicting clinical efficacy [76]. The table below summarizes common potency assays aligned with the MoA of different ATMP classes.

Table 1: Potency Assays Aligned with ATMP Mechanism of Action

ATMP Class	Primary Mechanism of Action (MoA)	Recommended Potency Assays	Specific Readouts
Cytotoxic Lymphocytes (CTL, CAR-T) [77]	MHC-restricted or unrestricted cytotoxicity against target cells.	Cytotoxicity assays, cytokine secretion profiling, degranulation markers.	51Cr release, IFNγ/IL2 ELISpot, CD107a expression, Granzyme B.
Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) [77] [60]	Immunomodulation, trophic support, angiogenesis.	Cytokine secretion assays, tubulogenesis assays.	VEGF, IL-10 quantification in vitro; endothelial tube formation.
Genetically Modified CD34+ Cells [77] [60]	Enzyme replacement, tissue regeneration via paracrine factors.	Transgene expression, protein activity, secreted factor quantification.	Vector copy number, specific enzyme activity, VEGF secretion.
Live-Attenuated Viral Vaccines [78]	Host cell infection and replication to elicit an immune response.	Infectivity assays, immunostaining of viral proteins.	Plaque assay, imaging of viral immediate-early (IE1) protein expression.

The following workflow outlines the systematic approach to potency assay development, from MoA hypothesis to validation.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Cytotoxicity Assay for CAR-T Cells

This protocol measures the specific lytic activity of CAR-T cells, a direct reflection of their primary MoA.

3.1.1 Materials and Reagents

• Effector cells: CAR-T cell product.
• Target cells: Antigen-positive and antigen-negative (control) cell lines.
• Culture medium: Appropriate complete medium (e.g., RPMI-1640 with 10% FBS).
• Cytotoxicity detection reagent: Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) release kit or 51Chromium (51Cr) for traditional assays.
• Equipment: CO2 incubator, plate reader or gamma counter, multi-well plates.

3.1.2 Procedure

• Target Cell Preparation: Harvest and wash target cells. For LDH assays, seed target cells at a density of 1x10^4 cells per well in a 96-well plate. For 51Cr assays, label target cells with 100 μCi of Na2(51Cr)O4 for 1 hour at 37°C and wash thoroughly to remove unincorporated radioactivity.
• Effector Cell Addition: Add CAR-T effector cells to the target cells at varying Effector:Target (E:T) ratios (e.g., 40:1, 20:1, 10:1, 5:1). Include controls for spontaneous release (target cells alone) and maximum release (target cells with lysis buffer).
• Co-incubation: Incubate the co-culture for 4-6 hours at 37°C in a 5% CO2 incubator.
• Signal Measurement:
  • LDH Assay: Centrifuge plates, transfer supernatant to a new plate, and add LDH substrate according to the kit instructions. Measure colorimetric change at 490 nm.
  • 51Cr Assay: Collect supernatant and measure radioactivity using a gamma counter.
• Data Analysis: Calculate specific cytotoxicity using the formula: % Specific Lysis = [(Experimental Release - Spontaneous Release) / (Maximum Release - Spontaneous Release)] x 100 A dose-response curve (lysis % vs. E:T ratio) is used to determine potency relative to a reference standard [77].

Protocol 2: VEGF Secretion Assay for CD34+ Cell Therapy (ProtheraCytes)

This automated, quantitative ELISA-based protocol measures the secretion of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), a key MoA-related angiogenic factor, serving as a potency assay for batch release.

3.2.1 Materials and Reagents

• Test Samples: Supernatants from expanded CD34+ cell cultures (e.g., after 9 days of expansion).
• Reference Standard: Qualified VEGF standard with known concentration.
• Automated Immunoassay System: ELLA system (Bio-Techne) or equivalent.
• Consumables: Simple Plex Cartridge for VEGF-A.
• Buffers: Assay diluents as provided by the kit manufacturer [60].

3.2.2 Procedure

• Sample Preparation: Clarify cell culture supernatants by centrifugation to remove any cellular debris. Keep samples on ice.
• Instrument Setup: Prime the ELLA instrument according to the manufacturer's instructions. Load the VEGF-A cartridge and reagent kit.
• Loading: Pipette standards (for calibration curve) and undiluted test samples into the designated wells of the cartridge.
• Automated Run: Initiate the automated protocol. The microfluidic system performs all subsequent steps, including incubation, washing, and fluorescence detection. The run is typically completed in less than 90 minutes.
• Data Analysis: The software automatically generates a standard curve and interpolates the VEGF concentration in the test samples from the curve. The reported concentration is used as the direct measure of product potency for the batch [60].

Protocol 3: High-Throughput Imaging of Relative Viral Expression (IRVE) for HCMV Vaccine

This protocol details a high-throughput, automated relative potency assay for a live-attenuated Human Cytomegalovirus (HCMV) vaccine, measuring infectivity via immunostaining of an immediate-early viral protein.

3.3.1 Materials and Reagents

• Host Cells: ARPE-19 epithelial cell line.
• Virus Samples: Live-attenuated HCMV vaccine candidate.
• Culture Medium: DMEM/F-12 supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% Pen/Strep.
• Fixation and Permeabilization Buffers: 4% paraformaldehyde, 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS.
• Antibodies: Primary antibody against HCMV Immediate Early 1 (IE1) protein and a fluorescently-labeled secondary antibody.
• Nuclear Stain: Hoechst 33342 or DAPI.
• Equipment: Automated cell culture system, 384-well imaging plates, high-content imaging microscope, integrated robotic system for liquid handling [78].

3.3.2 Procedure

• Cell Seeding: Using automation, seed ARPE-19 cells at an optimized density (e.g., 5,000 cells/well) in 384-well plates. Incubate for 24 hours to allow cell attachment.
• Virus Infection: Prepare serial dilutions of the HCMV reference standard and test samples. Remove culture medium from the plates and add the virus dilutions to the wells. Incubate for a defined period (e.g., 24-48 hours).
• Immunostaining:
  • Fixation: Aspirate medium and fix cells with 4% PFA for 15 minutes at room temperature.
  • Permeabilization: Wash with PBS, then permeabilize with 0.1% Triton X-100 for 10 minutes.
  • Antibody Staining: Block with 1% BSA, then incubate with primary anti-IE1 antibody, followed by a fluorescent secondary antibody. Co-stain nuclei with Hoechst.
• Automated Imaging and Analysis: Image each well using a high-content imager. Use analysis software to count the total number of nuclei (from the nuclear stain) and the number of IE1-positive infected nuclei.
• Potency Calculation: Calculate the % infection ((IE1+ nuclei / Total nuclei) * 100) for each dilution. Generate a dose-response curve for both the reference and test samples. The relative potency is calculated as the ratio of the test sample's ED50 (effective dilution for 50% infection) to the reference standard's ED50 [78].

Validation Parameters and Acceptance Criteria

Assay validation provides objective evidence that the procedure is suitable for its intended purpose. The following table outlines the core validation parameters and typical acceptance criteria based on international guidelines (ICH Q2(R2)) [60] [75].

Table 2: Assay Validation Parameters and Acceptance Criteria

Validation Parameter	Definition & Objective	Recommended Acceptance Criteria
Specificity	Ability to measure the analyte accurately in the presence of other components.	VEGF in unspiked medium < LLOQ (e.g., < 2 pg/mL vs LLOQ of 20 pg/mL) [60].
Linearity & Range	The range of analyte concentrations over which the assay provides accurate and precise results.	Linear response with R² ≥ 0.95 (e.g., 20 pg/mL - 2800 pg/mL for VEGF ELISA) [60].
Accuracy	Closeness of measured value to the true value.	Mean recovery of 85%-105% for spiked samples across the range [60].
Precision	Degree of scatter between repeated measurements.	Repeatability (CV): ≤ 10-15%Intermediate Precision (CV): ≤ 20% [60].
Robustness	Capacity to remain unaffected by small, deliberate variations in method parameters.	The assay meets all precision and accuracy criteria when parameters (e.g., incubation time, reagent lot) are varied.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table lists key reagents and their critical functions in ensuring the success and reliability of potency assays.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Potency Assays

Reagent / Solution	Critical Function in Potency Assay
Validated Reference Standard	Serves as the benchmark for calculating relative potency and ensures assay consistency over time [75].
Cell-Based Reference Materials	Provides a biologically relevant system to control for variability in cell-based assays (e.g., tubulogenesis assays) [61].
MoA-Matched Positive Controls	Confirms the assay system is functioning correctly (e.g., a known cytotoxic T-cell line for a cytotoxicity assay) [77].
High-Quality Antibody Pairs	Essential for specific detection in ELISA and immunostaining (e.g., for VEGF or viral IE1 protein) [78] [60].
Defined Culture Media & Sera	Minimizes background variability in cell-based assays by providing consistent cell growth conditions [78].

The development and validation of potency assays that accurately reflect a product's complex MoA are non-negotiable for the successful development and regulatory approval of ATMPs. A systematic approach—beginning with a clear MoA hypothesis, followed by the selection of relevant CQAs and the implementation of robust, quantitative assays—is paramount. As demonstrated, this may require a combination of assay formats, from traditional cytotoxicity tests to modern automated immunoassays and high-content imaging. Adherence to validation guidelines to establish specificity, accuracy, precision, and robustness ensures that these critical methods are fit-for-purpose, supporting not only product release but also process validation, stability studies, and successful comparability exercises throughout the product lifecycle.

For cell therapy Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), managing the assay lifecycle is a critical component of the overall process validation strategy, directly impacting the ability to demonstrate consistent product quality, safety, and efficacy. The inherent biological variability of living cells as starting materials, combined with the complex, product-specific nature of the bioassays used to characterize them, presents unique challenges [1] [79]. A robust assay lifecycle management strategy ensures that these methods remain reliable, reproducible, and fit-for-purpose throughout the product's development and commercial lifecycle. This application note details practical protocols for integrating platform data from historical assays and implementing systematic controls for reagent variability, providing a framework to enhance the consistency and regulatory robustness of potency assays and other critical quality tests for cell therapy ATMPs.

Strategic Incorporation of Platform Data

Leveraging data from previously developed "platform" assays—methods used for similar product classes—can significantly accelerate development, establish meaningful initial acceptance criteria, and inform risk assessments.

Protocol: Establishing a Platform Data Repository

Objective: To create a centralized and structured database of historical assay performance data for use in developing new cell therapy ATMP assays. Materials: Historical assay validation and qualification reports (e.g., from LIMS), electronic lab notebooks, statistical analysis software (e.g., JMP, SAS). Methodology:

• Data Identification and Extraction: Systematically gather data from legacy assays for similar modalities (e.g., previous CAR-T products). Key data points include:
  • Variance components (analyst-to-analyst, day-to-day, inter-assay) from Intermediate Precision studies [80].
  • Accuracy and Repeatability data across the assay range.
  • Specificity and robustness study results.
  • Stability data for critical reagents.
• Data Normalization: Standardize data formats to ensure comparability. For potency assays, focus on relative potency (%RP) and associated measures like %CV or %GCV [81].
• Metadata Tagging: Annotate all data with critical metadata, such as product type, assay format (cell-based, immunoassay), critical reagents used, and manufacturing process stage.
• Analysis and Modeling: Use statistical software to analyze the compiled data. Calculate descriptive statistics and perform variance component analysis to understand the typical sources and magnitudes of variability for your platform [82].

Application: The analyzed platform data provides a justification for initial, phase-appropriate specification ranges for new products and helps identify assay parameters that typically require the most control during development [81].

Data Integration for Specification Setting

The table below summarizes how different types of platform data can be applied to new assay development.

Table 1: Application of Platform Data in New Assay Development

Platform Data Type	Application in New Development	Benefit
Variance Components ( [82] [81])	Informs the design of qualification studies; predicts the number of runs needed for a precise reportable result.	Sets realistic precision expectations and aids in resource planning.
Historical %CV/%GCV ( [81])	Justifies initial potency assay specification ranges for First-in-Human (FTIH) filings.	Provides a science- and history-based rationale for regulators, avoiding overly wide or narrow specifications.
Robustness Ranges ( [80])	Informs the setting of initial control parameters for critical reagent concentrations, incubation times, and cell culture conditions.	De-risks method transfer by starting with known stable operating ranges.
Stability Data	Guides the setting of shelf-life for new but similar critical reagents and reference standards.	Prevents reagent failure and ensures assay consistency.

Addressing Reagent Variability

Reagent variability is a major contributor to overall assay variability, especially in cell-based bioassays. A proactive, controlled approach to reagent qualification and management is essential.

Protocol: Qualification of New Reagent Lots

Objective: To ensure new lots of critical reagents perform equivalently to the currently qualified lot, thereby maintaining assay performance. Materials: Current qualified reagent lot, new reagent lot(s), assay-specific components (cells, reference standard, buffers), appropriate plate readers or analyzers. Methodology:

• Experimental Design: Employ a multi-day, multi-analyst study design to capture relevant sources of variability. A minimum of three independent runs performed by two different analysts is recommended.
• Testing Strategy: Test both the current and new reagent lots in parallel using the same batch of other assay components. Include a standard curve and a test sample (or well-characterized control) in each run.
• Data Analysis: The primary comparison is the relative potency (%RP) of the test sample/control derived using the new reagent lot versus the current lot.
  • Calculate the %Relative Difference between the mean %RP values.
  • Predefined acceptance criteria for equivalence should be established (e.g., mean %RP of the new lot must be within ±XX% of the current lot, based on platform data).
• Parallelism Assessment: Visually and statistically (e.g., using an equivalence test of the curve slopes) confirm that the dose-response curves generated with the new reagent are parallel to those from the current reagent [81].

The following workflow diagram outlines the critical decision points in this qualification process.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Controlling reagent variability requires high-quality materials and disciplined management. The table below lists essential items and their functions in managing the assay lifecycle.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Assay Control

Item / Solution	Function in Managing Variability
Cell Bank System ( [83])	Provides a consistent source of biologically active cells for cell-based assays, minimizing drift in signal and responsiveness. Master and Working Cell Banks are crucial.
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-Grade Raw Materials ( [1] [35])	Ensures reagents like cytokines and cell culture media meet stringent quality and consistency standards, reducing lot-to-lot variability introduced by raw materials.
Reference Standard (RS) ( [81] [80])	A well-characterized, stable material of known potency used to calculate Relative Potency (%RP). It controls for inter-assay variability and is the benchmark for system suitability.
Secondary Reference ( [80])	A qualified backup standard calibrated against the primary RS. Ensures continuity of testing if the primary RS is depleted or expires.
Stability-Monitoring Program	A protocol for periodically testing critical reagents under accelerated and real-time conditions to establish and verify shelf-life, preventing use of degraded components.
Variance Component Analysis Software ( [82] [81])	Statistical tools (e.g., JMP, SAS) used to quantify sources of variability (analyst, day, reagent lot), allowing for targeted improvement efforts.

Integrated Protocol for Ongoing Assay Performance Monitoring

Objective: To continuously monitor assay performance and reagent behavior over time, enabling proactive intervention and demonstrating ongoing assay control. Materials: Qualified reference standard, control charts, statistical software, Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Methodology:

• Control Charting: Plot the EC50 (or other system suitability parameter) of the reference standard from every valid assay run on a control chart (e.g., an XmR chart) [80].
• Trend Analysis: Regularly review charts for signals of special cause variation (e.g., points outside control limits, shifts, or trends). This can indicate issues with reagent degradation, cell passage drift, or equipment malfunction.
• Proactive Reagent Management: Use stability data and monitoring trends to anticipate reagent exhaustion. Plan and initiate requalification studies well before a reagent is fully depleted.
• Periodic Re-assessment: As more data is accumulated for a specific product, periodically re-estimate the total assay variability. This data can be used to justify tightening of specification ranges as the product progresses to later clinical phases and commercialization [81].

The logical flow of this continuous lifecycle management is depicted below.

Conclusion

Successful process validation for cell therapy ATMPs requires a holistic, science-based approach that addresses unique product complexities while maintaining regulatory compliance. Key takeaways include the necessity of early process design, strategic management of limited batch scenarios, development of robust analytical methods, and implementation of comprehensive contamination control strategies. As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve, future success will depend on greater regulatory convergence, advanced analytical technologies, and scalable manufacturing platforms that maintain product quality while expanding patient access. Proactive engagement with regulatory agencies and adoption of platform knowledge will be crucial for accelerating the commercialization of these transformative therapies.

References

• 1. Current challenges and future directions of ATMPs in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12274769/]
• 2. Bringing Advanced Therapies Closer To Patients [https://www.deloitte.com/be/en/Industries/life-sciences-health-care/analysis/point-of-care-manufacture-advanced-therapies.html]
• 3. Contract Manufacturing Outsourcing Trends For Advanced ... [https://www.outsourcedpharma.com/doc/contract-manufacturing-outsourcing-trends-for-advanced-therapies-in-and-beyond-0001]
• 4. Cell Therapy Manufacturing Decade Long Trends, Analysis ... [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/cell-therapy-manufacturing-136446]
• 5. Advancing cell therapy manufacturing: an image-based ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1651144/full]
• 6. Cellular & Gene Therapy Guidances [https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/biologics-guidances/cellular-gene-therapy-guidances]
• 7. FDA gene and cell therapy CMC requirements [https://gmdpacademy.org/news/fda-gene-cell-therapy-cmc-requirements/]
• 8. Rare Disease Focus: FDA's Trio of Cell and Gene Therapy ... [https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/11/rare-disease-focus-fdas-trio-of-cell-and-gene-therapy-draft-guidances-highlight-expedited-programs]
• 9. EMA Guideline On Clinical-Stage ATMPs Comes Into Effect [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/ema-guideline-on-clinical-stage-atmps-comes-into-effect-on-the-verge-of-convergence-0001]
• 10. Key Insights from FDA's Draft Guidance on FAQs for CGT [https://voisinconsulting.com/blog/key-insights-from-fdas-draft-guidance-on-faqs-for-cgt-quality-and-regulatory-interactions/]
• 11. EMA Proposes Revisions to GMP Guideline for ATMPs [https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/ema-proposes-revisions-to-gmp-guideline-for-atmps]
• 12. EMA releases concept paper to revise GMP Guidelines for ... [https://www.gxp-cc.com/insights/blog/1823/]
• 13. ICH publishes Training Materials on Q2(R2) and Q14 [https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/ich-publishes-training-materials-on-q2r2-and-q14]
• 14. Manufacturing and control strategies for Cell and Gene ... [https://www.parexel.com/insights/blog/manufacturing-and-control-strategies-for-cell-and-gene-therapy-products-navigating-eu-and-us-regulatory-requirements]
• 15. Cell & gene therapy clinical trials, development promoted ... [https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/cell-gene-therapy-clinical-trials-development-promoted-in-three-new-fda-guidance-documents]
• 16. Proposed Solutions For Cell & Gene Therapy Validation Challenges [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/proposed-solutions-for-cell-gene-therapy-validation-challenges-0001]
• 17. Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs ... [https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/ispeak/new-ispe-guide-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-atmps]
• 18. FDA Regulation of Cell and Gene Therapy: A Comprehensive Compliance Framework for CGT Development [year] – FDA Guidelines [https://www.fdaguidelines.com/fda-regulation-of-cell-and-gene-therapy-a-comprehensive-compliance-framework-for-cgt-development-year/]
• 19. Validation of a quantitative cell-based relative potency ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S232905012500018X]
• 20. Stages Process Validation Explained [https://www.nnit.com/insights/articles/stages-process-validation-explained]
• 21. Validation Challenges for Advanced Therapies [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/cell-therapies/analytical-method-validation-challenges-for-advanced-therapies-using-gene-therapies-as-an-example]
• 22. Modern Lifecycle Process Validation: Beyond the Trilogy [https://blog.seerpharma.com/webinar-modern-lifecycle-process-validation-beyond-the-trilogy]
• 23. Impact of ATMP Manufacturing on Process Equipment and ... [https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/impact-atmp-manufacturing-process-equipment-and-facility-design]
• 24. Process Validation / PPQ - Progress – Experts in Life Sciences [https://progress-lifesciences.nl/ppq/]
• 25. Aspects and Implementation of Pharmaceutical Quality by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12114689/]
• 26. Identification of critical process parameters and quality ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12408662/]
• 27. Trends - for - Cell-based - Drugs - Biomanufacturing - SEQENS [https://www.seqens.com/knowledge-center/analytical-science-trends-for-cell-based-drugs-biomanufacturing/]
• 28. ICH Q8 Explained: A Guide to Pharmaceutical ... [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/ich-q8-pharmaceutical-development]
• 29. Quality Risk Management System and Advanced Therapy ... [https://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/Featured-Articles/614410-Quality-Risk-Management-System-and-Advanced-Therapy-Medicinal-Products/]
• 30. Manufacturing & Controls for Advanced Therapy Medical ... [https://www.eurogct.org/pl/node/1297]
• 31. Cell by Design (CbD) [https://www.gmp-journal.com/current-articles/details/cell-by-design-cbd.html]
• 32. Process Steps in Cell Therapy Manufacturing [https://www.cellandgene.com/topic/cell-therapy-manufacturing]
• 33. ATMP Development in 2025: Promise, Pressure, and the ... [https://www.cryoport.com/bio-blog-atmp-development-in-2025-promise-pressure-and-the-push-to-scale/]
• 34. Considerations for process design to improve cell therapy ... [https://pharmaceuticalmanufacturer.media/pharmaceutical-industry-insights/pharmaceutical-manufacturing-insights/considerations-for-process-design-to-improve-cell-therapy-ma/]
• 35. Cell Therapy Manufacturing: Testing, Validation & ... [https://www.allucent.com/resources/blog/cell-therapy-manufacturing]
• 36. Designing Cell Therapy Analytical Programs for Regulatory ... [https://kincellbio.com/designing-cell-therapy-analytical-programs-for-regulatory-success/]
• 37. Cell Therapy CMC and Manufacturing - 2025 Archive [https://www.bioprocessingeurope.com/25/cell-therapy-manufacturing]
• 38. Good Practice Guide: ATMPs – Equipment Design & ... [https://ispe.org/publications/guidance-documents/good-practice-guide-atmps-equipment-design-qualification-cellular-products]
• 39. Manufacturing Capacity Expansion and Validation for ... [https://www.pda.org/pda-letter-portal/home/full-article/manufacturing-capacity-expansion-and-validation-for-autologous-cell-therapies]
• 40. FAQs - 7th Cell Therapy Analytical Development [https://cell-therapy-analytics.com/about/faqs/]
• 41. Developing A Process Performance Qualification Master ... [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/developing-a-process-performance-qualification-master-plan-for-gene-therapies-0001]
• 42. ATMPs: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/cell-therapies/manufacture-and-regulation-of-cell-gene-and-tissue-therapies-part-1-chemistry-manufacturing-and-control-challenges]
• 43. Blog #11 – How many Process Performance Qualification ... [https://www.bluehatchconsultancy.com/blog-11-how-many-process-performance-qualification-batches-are-required/]
• 44. FDA Publishes New Draft Guidance on Regenerative ... [https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/10/fda-publishes-new-draft-guidance-on-regenerative-medicine-therapies]
• 45. Managing Raw Material Variability for Autologous Cell ... [https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/managing-raw-material-variability-for-autologous-cell-therapies]
• 46. How Potency Assay Strategy Can Accelerate Cell Therapy ... [https://slingshotbio.com/how-potency-assay-strategy-can-accelerate-cell-therapy-development/]
• 47. From the Editors — Cell Therapy Regulation in 2025 [https://www.isctglobal.org/telegrafthub/blogs/isct-head-office1/2025/10/07/from-the-editors-cell-therapy-regulation-in-2025-a]
• 48. Engineered Cell Therapies 2025–2029 [https://www.frost.com/growth-opportunity-news/techvision/engineering-the-future-of-medicine-how-next-generation-cell-therapies-are-redefining-precision-healthcare-tnv05_tg02_next-generationcelltherapiesredefiningprecisionhealthcare_nov25_cim-sn/]
• 49. Development of Stem Cell Data Systems and Associated ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41136854/]
• 50. Tech data standards can help pharma digitize [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/upstream-downstream-processing/process-tech-data-standards-would-help-biopharma-digitize-siemans-study]
• 51. FDA IND CMC Requirements for Biologics: A 2025 ... [https://scxcmc.com/fda-ind-cmc-requirements-for-biologics/]
• 52. The Challenge of Variability in Chimeric Antigen Receptor T ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7728294/]
• 53. Enhancing CAR T‐cell therapy manufacturing efficiency ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12129705/]
• 54. Top 6 Visualizations for Quantitative Data Analysis Methods [https://chartexpo.com/blog/quantitative-data-analysis-methods]
• 55. The potential of microfluidic cell analysis in CAR T ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12605917/]
• 56. Cell and Gene Therapy Quality Control and Analytics ... [https://www.precedenceresearch.com/cell-and-gene-therapy-quality-control-and-analytics-market]
• 57. A Novel Approach To Managing Risks In Aseptic Processing Of Cell & Gene Therapies [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/a-novel-approach-to-managing-risks-in-aseptic-processing-of-cell-gene-therapies-0001]
• 58. Closed System Automation for Cell Therapy [https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/closed-system-automation-cell-therapy/]
• 59. Closed-system manufacturing of therapeutic NK cells using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12238007/]
• 60. Validation of a potency assay for CD34 + cell based therapy [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14828-w]
• 61. Strategies for Achieving Measurement Assurance for Cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4878336/]
• 62. Flow Cytometry as a Tool for Potency Determination in ... [https://www.bioagilytix.com/resources/posters/flow-cytometry-as-a-tool-for-potency-determination-in-atmp-development-wcbp-2025/]
• 63. Recommendations for Determining Eligibility of Donors ... [https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recommendations-determining-eligibility-donors-human-cells-tissues-and-cellular-and-tissue-based]
• 64. FDA vs. EMA: Navigating Divergent Regulatory ... [https://cromospharma.com/fda-vs-ema-navigating-divergent-regulatory-expectations-for-cell-and-gene-therapies-what-biopharma-companies-need-to-know/]
• 65. FDA, EMA See Differences in Cell and Gene Therapy Trial ... [https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/fda-ema-see-differences-in-cell-and-gene-therapy-trial-data]
• 66. FDA vs. EMA: Key Differences in Drug Approval You Need ... [https://www.ecinnovations.com/blog/fda-vs-ema/]
• 67. EMA adopts guideline on requirements for clinical-stage ... [https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2025/2/ema-adopts-guideline-on-requirements-for-clinical]
• 68. Regulatory Requirements for Cell and Gene Therapeutics [https://www.valicare.com/en/cell-and-gene-therapy/regulatory-requirements/]
• 69. Process development and validation of expanded regulatory T ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-021-03200-x]
• 70. Where the US and EU differ and overlap with CGTs/ATMPs [https://www.pharmalex.com/thought-leadership/blogs/qa-for-innovators-navigating-the-complex-regulatory-world-of-atmps-cgts/]
• 71. Navigating ICH Q2(R2) compliance in analytical method ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022354925002072]
• 72. The 6 Key Aspects of Analytical Method Validation [https://www.elementlabsolutions.com/uk/chromatography-blog/post/6-key-aspects-of-analytical-method-validation]
• 73. Analytical Method Validation: Back to Basics, Part II [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/analytical-method-validation-back-basics-part-ii]
• 74. Potency testing of cell and gene therapy products [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2023.1190016/full]
• 75. Potency Assays: Development & Regulatory ... [https://abzena.com/articles/blog/potency-assays-development-regulatory-considerations/]
• 76. Characterization and analysis of cell therapies [https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/characterization-and-analysis-of-cell-therapies/]
• 77. Potency assays and biomarkers for cell-based advanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10288881/]
• 78. A High-Throughput and Robust Relative Potency Assay ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12197749/]
• 79. Basics of advanced therapy medicinal product ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590018823000400]
• 80. Essentials in Bioassay Development [https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/essentials-bioassay-development]
• 81. Potency Assay Variability Estimation in Practice - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11788244/]
• 82. Certain Approaches to Understanding Sources of Bioassay ... [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/assays/certain-approaches-to-understanding-sources-of-bioassay-variability]
• 83. Bioprocess Development, Control, and Optimization [https://www.hamiltoncompany.com/knowledge-base/article/bioprocess-development-control-and-optimization?srsltid=AfmBOor3O0Kq1qW7SM7V1Uqd0TjDAKAJSznKTeyHp1AlXsCHMNACIXKF]