Smart Biotech Scientist | The CMC and Bioprocessing Podcast for Process Development and Manufacturing Leaders

Are you still using one-factor-at-a-time experiments for biosimilar development, losing months, missing interactions, and risking costly dead-ends?
In this episode, David Brühlmann, host of the Smart Biotech Scientist Podcast, reveals how traditional "one factor at a time" screening in biosimilar development can take over 12 months, while the parallel group design massively accelerates discovery by grouping up to five factors per experiment and applying a multivariate analysis pipeline.
Topics discussed:
The limitations of traditional and large DoE designs and the advantages of parallel group design (00:08)
Best practices for grouping compounds by biological mechanism with four essential rules (00:53)
The importance of anchor compounds, separating strong modulators, and initial univariate screens for unknown compounds (01:43)
Guidance on managing practical issues, including evaporation, liquid handling, osmolality, and replicating production processes (06:42)
The use of multivariate analysis tools: Principal Component Analysis, Mahalanobis distance, and decision trees for candidate selection (10:14)
Key results and outcomes from applying the parallel group method, including faster and more cost-effective quality modulator identification (12:46)
Three improvements David would recommend today: prequalifying compounds, broader quality analytics, and hybrid modeling integration (13:49)
The shift in mindset from “time problem” to “information problem” in process development (16:50)
Extending the parallel group and multivariate approach to other areas like clone selection and scale-up decisions (17:52)
Smart insight:
Process development is fundamentally about generating actionable information, not just running more experiments. The parallel group, multivariate pipeline lets teams ask better questions, in parallel, with dramatically improved data yield. This mindset and methodology extend well beyond biosimilar media development into clone selection, feed design, and process characterization, wherever complexity would paralyze traditional approaches.
If you want more detail, you can read the full article “Parallel experimental design and multivariate analysis provides efficient screening of cell culture media supplements to improve biosimilar product quality” published in Biotechnology and Bioengineering, which outlines the methods and findings behind this approach.
If you’re interested in hybrid modeling, here’s what previous podcast guests have shared on the topic, offering perspectives from fundamentals to real-world applications.
Episodes 05 - 06: Hybrid Modeling: The Key to Smarter Bioprocessing with Michael Sokolov
Episodes 99 - 100: From Raw Data to Actionable Insights: Unlocking the Power of Process Models with Fabian Feidl
Episodes 137 - 138: Skip 90% of Bioreactor Runs: The In Silico Revolution in Bioprocess Development with Yossi Quint
Episodes 173 - 174: Mastering Hybrid Model Digital Twins: From Lab Scale to Commercial Bioprocessing with Krist Gernaey
Next step: If this was useful, leave a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other scientists find this content, and it genuinely matters.
Support the show

Are you stuck screening endless compounds in biosimilar development and still not hitting your quality targets? Efficient compound screening is one of the toughest bottlenecks in biopharma, with outdated methods slowing progress and risking critical quality attributes in monoclonal antibody development.
David Brühlmann breaks down a practical, parallel framework for rapid compound screening that addresses interaction effects, masking, and data quality. Methods proven in challenging biosimilar development programs.
Topics discussed:
The historical bottleneck of one-at-a-time screening in drug discovery and the impact of high throughput methods (01:04)
Problems with both one-factor-at-a-time and large design of experiments approaches when handling many variables (02:10)
Description of the parallel group method: splitting 17 quality modulating compounds into five biologically relevant groups and running experiments in parallel (06:09)
How grouping compounds by biological mechanism improves interpretability and experimental design (06:43)
Strategies for minimizing dilution effects, toxicity risks, and masking in multi-factor screens (08:24)
The importance of multivariate analysis: using principal component analysis (PCA), Mahalanobis distance, and decision trees to interpret and select optimal experimental conditions (10:31)
Real-world outcomes: identifying optimal compound combinations in just two rounds of screening (15:20)
Reflections on the evolving role of hybrid modeling and machine learning in biosimilar process optimization (15:54)
In Part 2, the focus shifts to a hands-on approach, covering how to design compound groups based on biology, set concentration ranges without compromising data quality, and execute a 96-well screen with the rigor the method demands. It also highlights three key aspects that would be approached differently if the study were conducted today.
Strategic insight:
Effective compound screening shifts from one-at-a-time testing to biology-driven parallel grouping combined with multivariate analytics, enabling faster identification of optimal combinations while preserving data quality and capturing interaction effects.
If you want more detail, you can read the full article “Parallel experimental design and multivariate analysis provides efficient screening of cell culture media supplements to improve biosimilar product quality” published in Biotechnology and Bioengineering, which outlines the methods and findings behind this approach.
If you’re interested in hybrid modeling, here’s what previous podcast guests have shared on the topic, offering perspectives from fundamentals to real-world applications.
Episodes 05 - 06: Hybrid Modeling: The Key to Smarter Bioprocessing with Michael Sokolov
Episodes 99 - 100: From Raw Data to Actionable Insights: Unlocking the Power of Process Models with Fabian Feidl
Episodes 137 - 138: Skip 90% of Bioreactor Runs: The In Silico Revolution in Bioprocess Development with Yossi Quint
Episodes 173 - 174: Mastering Hybrid Model Digital Twins: From Lab Scale to Commercial Bioprocessing with Krist Gernaey
Next step: If this was useful, leave a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other scientists find this content, and it genuinely matters.
Support the show

When every batch belongs to a single patient, a single centralized facility cannot serve the world. In Part 2, Chantale Bernatchez moves from process development into the broader consequences of that reality: the manufacturing model built around clinical proximity, the global alliance bringing TIL production to regions with no current access, and the next-generation engineered approaches redefining what these therapies can do.
Chantale Bernatchez is Head of Process Development at CTMC, a joint venture between Resilience and MD Anderson Cancer Center. If you missed Part 1, she explained how specific activation changes recovered a failing TIL process from 50% to 95% success in heavily pre-treated patients.
Topics discussed:
How close collaboration with MD Anderson accelerates clinical development and regulatory readiness (03:08)
CTMC’s approach to process development and adapting to innovative technologies (05:15)
The value of partnership-based models versus traditional CDMO-driven approaches (06:24)
Global technology transfer: building alliances to expand access to cell therapies, with a case study in Brazil (07:35)
Key barriers and solutions for cell therapy manufacturing in new regions (09:41)
Practical advice for scientists starting in GMP manufacturing and process development (10:46)
Future directions in CAR T and TIL, including logic-gated CARs, engineered TILs, and in vivo therapies (12:24)
The importance of continued innovation and collaboration to expand global patient access (17:39)
Smart insight:
The choice of manufacturing partner in cell therapy is not a logistics decision. It is a process development decision. CTMC's collaboration-based model exists because many early-stage developers arrive without a process robust enough to hand over. For scientists in small or mid-sized companies, engaging that kind of partnership too late, or on purely transactional terms, is one of the most avoidable risks in early clinical development.
If you’re interested in exploring further the concepts we touched on, such as cell therapy manufacturing, process control, and scaling living therapies—take a look at these related discussions:
Episodes 125 - 126: How to Enhance Cell Engineering Using Mechanical Intracellular Delivery with Armon Sharei
Episodes 109 - 110: Spinning Like Earth: Designing Low-Shear Bioreactors for Better Cell Culture with Olivier Detournay
Episodes 105 - 106: From Proteins to Cell Therapy: Why ATMPs Aren’t Just Complex Biologics with Oliver Kraemer
Connect with Chantale Bernatchez:
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/chantale-bernatchez-22b09511
CTMC website: www.ctmc.com
Support the show

The most underappreciated parameter in cell therapy process development is not your bioreactor, your media, or your activation protocol. It is the patient. Chantale Bernatchez has spent 20 years learning that lesson the hard way, watching the same manufacturing process succeed brilliantly with one donor and fail completely with the next. In this episode, she explains why starting material variability is the defining challenge of cell therapy manufacturing, and what it actually takes to build a process robust enough to survive it.
Chantale Bernatchez is Head of Process Development at CTMC, a joint venture between Resilience and MD Anderson Cancer Center. She holds a PhD in immunology and has spent two decades advancing T cell therapy from early research programs at MD Anderson to GMP-compliant clinical manufacturing. She holds four patents in adoptive cell therapy.
Key topics discussed:
Personal journey: from immunology PhD in Quebec to cell therapy leadership in Houston (04:25)
Evolution of TIL therapy at MD Anderson, including manufacturing innovations to overcome declining T cell yields (06:14)
The fundamental differences between traditional medicines and cell-based immunotherapies (10:01)
Unique manufacturing complexities for autologous therapies, including batch variability and process standardization (11:19)
Strategies to address decreased cell fitness in heavily pretreated patients, including changes in cell activation and culture conditions (13:57)
Key learnings from the CAR T and TIL manufacturing process: balancing process duration, cell fitness, and product yield (16:28)
Mechanistic differences between CAR T and TIL therapies and their implications for efficacy and resistance (17:58)
The limits and risks of automation in cell therapy manufacturing—balancing manual vs. automated processes (24:04)
Why moving between manufacturing platforms raises challenges in comparability and clinical outcomes (25:44)
The ongoing search for critical cell quality attributes that correlate with patient response (27:00)
In part two, Chantale goes deeper into next-generation approaches, technology transfer, and what needs to change to broadly expand patient access.
Smart insight: In cell therapy, manufacturing isn’t just a production step. It defines the therapy itself. Because each patient’s starting cells are unique, even subtle changes in the process can significantly alter clinical outcomes.
If you’re interested in exploring further the concepts we touched on—such as cell therapy manufacturing, process control, and scaling living therapies—take a look at these related discussions:
Episodes 125 - 126: How to Enhance Cell Engineering Using Mechanical Intracellular Delivery with Armon Sharei
Episodes 109 - 110: Spinning Like Earth: Designing Low-Shear Bioreactors for Better Cell Culture with Olivier Detournay
Episodes 105 - 106: From Proteins to Cell Therapy: Why ATMPs Aren’t Just Complex Biologics with Oliver Kraemer
Connect with Chantale Bernatchez:
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/chantale-bernatchez-22b09511
CTMC website: www.ctmc.com
Support the show

Getting an NDA signed shouldn't take weeks. If your CRO needs more than 48 hours to start the paperwork, your project timeline is already moving in the wrong direction.
Ron Najafi knows what rigorous analytical work actually looks like under pressure. As founder and CEO of Emery Pharma, he led the investigation that identified NDMA as a degradation product of ranitidine — findings the FDA formally validated and that reshaped how the industry approaches nitrosamine risk assessment. In Part 2, he moves from that scientific foundation into the operational questions that determine whether a CRO partnership accelerates your program or quietly slows it down.
If you haven't heard Part 1, it covers Ron's career arc and the technical details of nitrosamine contamination in pharmaceutical development. This episode stands on its own for anyone focused on CRO selection, bioanalytical strategy, and what three decades of building analytical companies actually teaches you.
Topics discussed:
How to tell if a CRO’s workflow is robust—or just rigid (05:51)
The importance of method validation and product stability testing (07:27)
Managing expectations and trust-building in client relationships (08:29)
Entrepreneurial lessons: raising capital, team-building, and finding the right partners (10:00)
The hidden costs of public vs. private biotech ventures (12:31)
Reducing bioanalytical costs in biologics through mass spectrometry (13:23)
The future of analytical workflows and personalized medicine (14:48)
Smart insight:
In biotech, success isn’t just about the science—it’s about strategic discipline. Ron emphasizes a few hard-earned principles: raise more capital than you think you’ll need, don’t fixate on valuation, and invest in smart, creative talent. Just as important, real value is unlocked through strong partnerships and the ability to manage collaborations and acquisitions with intention.
If this topic resonates with you, here are a few related episodes on building strong CMC foundations and avoiding costly development mistakes:
Episodes 231 - 232: From IND to BLA: The Biologics CMC Decisions That Determine Regulatory Success with Henri Kornmann
Episodes 203 - 204: Mastering CRO Selection: Essential Questions for CMC Analytical Development with Daniel Galbraith
Episodes 199 - 200: Mastering Quality by Design: From Product Failures to Commercial Success in Biologics CMC Development
Episodes 189 - 190: Why Smart Biotech Founders Plan CMC First (While Competitors Burn Cash Later)
Episodes 139 - 140: Regulatory Secrets Revealed: Why Your CMC Strategy Could Make or Break Your Biotech Startup with Rivka Zaibel
Episodes 57 - 58: Crafting a Solid CMC Strategy: Key Factors and Common Pitfalls with Matthias Müllner
Episodes 23 - 24: Strategies for Success: Master CMC Development with Gene Lee
Connect with Ron Najafi:
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/ronnajafi
Emery Pharma: www.emerypharma.com
Support the show