Jump to content

Adventitious Viral Detection in Biologics Manufacturing: Enabling Safety and Speed

July 7, 2026
Alison Waterfield

Adventitious viruses entering biologics manufacturing processes pose risks to patient safety and disrupt production. Detecting these viruses early is essential to maintain both safety and operational efficiency in biologics manufacturing.  

Next-generation sequencing (NGS), combined with platforms such as Genedata Selector®, enables unbiased detection of known and unknown viral contaminants, improving sensitivity and reducing test turnaround from weeks to days. However, implementing NGS‑based assays for adventitious virus detection (AVD) remains challenging due to the complexity and scale of the data generated.  

Outsourcing NGS assays can introduce significant delays, with long turnaround times and rising per‑sample costs often creating bottlenecks. At the same time, custom in-house pipelines frequently place a heavy burden on bioinformatics teams, requiring ongoing maintenance and presenting validation challenges. 

To overcome these limitations, biopharma organizations need scalable, validation-ready solutions that enable efficient, in-house analysis of NGS data while maintaining confidence in biosafety assessments.  

 
What is an Adventitious Virus? How Does it Impact Drug Safety? 

An adventitious virus is an unintended viral contaminant that enters a biologics manufacturing process. Because biologics are produced using living systems, viral contamination can arise through raw materials, cell substrates, equipment, or environmental exposure — even in well‑controlled facilities. If not detected early, adventitious viruses can compromise patient safety, trigger batch failures or investigations, disrupt manufacturing schedules, and delay the delivery of critical therapies. In some cases, these events can result in substantial financial losses, often costing millions of dollars in investigation, cleanup, corrective actions, and production downtime.1 Additionally, such events can increase regulatory scrutiny and require extensive investigations, placing significant pressure on manufacturing operations and delaying critical timelines. 

A well‑documented example is the minute virus of mice (MVM), an environmentally stable virus capable of infecting rodent‑derived cell lines such as Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Historical MVM contamination events have led to product losses and delayed treatment delivery, underscoring the importance of sensitive and timely viral detection in biologics manufacturing.2 Although such events are relatively rare, the detection or suspected presence of adventitious agents or signals can trigger extensive investigations and coordinated regulatory responses.  

What is Viral Detection and Why is it Critical in Biologics Manufacturing? 

Viral detection encompasses analytical methods used to identify viral contaminants at various stages of biologics manufacturing. It is a core component of biosafety testing, supporting confirmation that biological materials and process intermediates remain free from unintended viral agents. Biotherapeutics, including newer cell and gene therapies, are particularly vulnerable to contamination, making early and reliable viral detection essential.  

Failure to detect adventitious agents early in the manufacturing process can lead to facility downtime, batch failures, and significant economic losses, as well as disruptions to downstream manufacturing and development timelines. For this reason, a growing number of viral biosafety experts have identified NGS as a promising alternative to long-established testing approaches.3 Its ability to deliver results more quickly is a key driver of this shift.4 

Traditional Viral Detection Methods in Biologics Manufacturing and Their Limitations 

Traditional viral safety test methods include in vivo testing, indicator cell-based infectivity assays, and nucleic acid technology (NAT)-based tests. In vivo animal models are challenging because they typically require multi-week observation periods — often around four weeks or longer — delaying subsequent manufacturing steps, downstream decision-making, and clinical progress.5 These models have also been shown to be less sensitive and less reliable than molecular methods such as PCR.  

PCR-based tests improve reliability but remain limited to detecting predefined viral targets and therefore cannot detect unknown viruses in biopharmaceuticals. As a result, traditional testing strategies may fail to identify unexpected contaminants. 

NGS: Advanced Viral Detection Technology 

NGS allows comprehensive analysis of nucleic acids present in a sample without relying on predefined targets. This capability enables unbiased detection of both known and unknown viruses, addressing a key limitation of traditional viral detection methods.6 

Compared with in vivo and PCR-based approaches, NGS can improve sensitivity for low-abundance contaminants while delivering results within days rather than weeks.7,8 As biologics pipelines continue to grow, interest in integrating NGS into biosafety testing strategies in-house has increased. Successful implementation, however, depends on the ability to manage, analyze, and interpret the large volumes of data generated by sequencing workflows.  

Platforms such as Genedata Selector enable biopharma organizations to address these challenges by streamlining the in-house analysis of complex NGS datasets. By automating key steps in data processing and interpretation, they help teams scale NGS workflows efficiently while maintaining confidence in viral detection results. This approach allows organizations to retain control over their data, improve turnaround times, and support more reliable biosafety assessments. 

Key Benefits of NGS In-House for Adventitious Virus Detection in Biologics Manufacturing 

NGS introduces a different approach to adventitious virus detection compared with traditional biosafety testing methods. By addressing limitations related to sensitivity, scope, and testing duration, NGS can influence how manufacturers manage timelines, risk, and operational effort across biologics manufacturing. 

Schematic comparison of NGS-based biosafety testing
Schematic comparison of NGS-based biosafety testing and traditional viral detection approaches, highlighting differences in workflow structure, testing timelines, and data handling complexity

Accelerating Time-to-Market and Clinical Timelines 

Traditional viral safety testing methods often require multi-week timelines, which can slow manufacturing progress and delay downstream decisions. In contrast, NGS‑based approaches performed in-house enable significantly faster turnaround, allowing teams to identify potential viral contaminants earlier in the process.  

When supported by platforms such as Genedata Selector, these workflows can be further streamlined by accelerating key steps in NGS analysis. For example, in a recent application, automated data processing reduced analysis time from more than 60 hours to approximately 4 hours, demonstrating the potential to significantly improve turnaround in complex NGS workflows. 

Shorter testing timelines can translate into more efficient lot release decisions and reduced waiting periods between manufacturing steps. By minimizing delays associated with biosafety testing, manufacturers may be able to alleviate production bottlenecks and maintain development momentum. For therapies intended to address serious or life‑threatening conditions, reducing testing‑related delays can ultimately contribute to earlier patient access. 

Comprehensive Risk Mitigation Throughout Production 

NGS can be applied at multiple points across the biologics manufacturing lifecycle, including the assessment of cell banks, viral seeds, unprocessed bulk, and final drug product. This flexibility allows manufacturers to integrate viral detection throughout production rather than relying on a single downstream checkpoint. 

Broader and earlier detection of adventitious agents helps limit the operational impact of contamination events by identifying issues before they propagate through manufacturing. This reduces the risk of widespread batch loss, facility disruption, and extended investigations. When incorporated into a broader biosafety strategy, NGS aligns with Quality by Design (QbD) principles by supporting proactive risk identification and control.  

Increasingly, regulatory frameworks are recognizing the role of NGS-based approaches within risk-based viral safety strategies when appropriately validated and applied, reinforcing their fit within modern, lifecycle-oriented programs. 

Cost Savings and Resource Optimization 

The operational characteristics of NGS methods deployed in-house can also influence resource utilization in biosafety testing. By consolidating viral detection into a single, sequencing‑based approach, NGS can reduce reliance on multiple targeted PCR assays or in vivo tests traditionally used in parallel. This consolidation can simplify testing strategies and data review.  

In addition, shorter testing timelines and earlier detection of contaminants can help avoid costly batch losses or facility downtime. Reduced dependence on animal testing and fewer assay repetitions may further decrease labor and material requirements compared with traditional methods. Taken together, these factors can contribute to more efficient use of resources while maintaining rigorous viral safety oversight.  

Additionally, Genedata Selector enables use of NGS as a Multi-Attribute Method, where one assay can test multiple parameters, contributing to significant cost savings in comparison with other solutions. 

Implementing In-House Viral Safety Testing with Genedata Selector 

To address the challenges of managing complex NGS workflows, biopharma organizations are increasingly adopting integrated, in-house solutions. Genedata Selector, together with scientific consulting support, enables the implementation of NGS-based biosafety testing workflows from sample preparation through analysis, interpretation, and reporting in-house. 

As an enterprise software solution, Genedata Selector supports the structured tracking, processing, and visualization of NGS data, allowing organizations to retain control of sensitive intellectual property without relying on external service providers. Rather than replacing bioinformatics expertise, the platform standardizes repetitive analytical steps and reduces manual effort, enabling bioinformatics teams to focus on method development, data interpretation, and more advanced scientific challenges. 

By supporting scalable, in-house NGS workflows, Genedata Selector helps organizations accelerate adoption, improve consistency of analysis, and strengthen confidence in biosafety assessments. 

Core Capabilities of Genedata Selector for Biosafety Testing 

Genedata Selector standardizes and automates the analytical process, facilitating efficient go/no-go decisions on biosafety, including AAD, verification of gene insertion sites, and assessment of cell line stability and product integrity. As a validation-ready platform, Genedata Selector is suitable for deployment in GxP environments and handles reporting, auditing, and security requirements in line with regulatory guidelines. This allows organizations to use resources more efficiently while helping maintain development momentum for therapies addressing critical health needs. 

Regulatory Landscape and Compliance 

Regulations outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, Title 21), the U.S. Pharmacopeia, and the European Pharmacopeia emphasize the importance of viral safety measures in biologics manufacturing.6 These measures are typically organized around three pillars – prevention, detection, and removal – and address facility design, control strategies, testing stages, and purification processes. 

Regulatory bodies such as the WHO, FDA, and the European Pharmacopoeia Commission increasingly recognize the role of NGS-based methods in GMP manufacturing and risk reduction and encourage the reduction or replacement of in vivo testing where scientifically justified. 8-10 

Conclusion: The Future of Biosafety Testing 

As biologics pipelines continue to expand in complexity and pace, viral safety testing remains a critical component of upstream manufacturing and quality control and patient protection. Traditional detection approaches have established a strong regulatory foundation but are increasingly challenged by long turnaround times and limited ability to detect unexpected contaminants. 

NGS offers a complementary approach that addresses several of these limitations by enabling broader, faster, and more flexible viral detection across the manufacturing lifecycle. When integrated into biosafety strategies, NGS can support earlier risk identification and rapid contamination detection, more informed manufacturing decisions, and improved alignment between development timelines and safety requirements. 

Realizing the full potential of in-house NGS workflows in regulated environments depends not only on sequencing technology itself but also on the ability to manage data at scale, ensure traceability, and maintain regulatory readiness. Genedata Selector enables biopharma organizations to operationalize NGS for biosafety testing in-house by translating complex sequencing data into actionable insights through standardized, automated workflows. 

By enabling scalable, compliant, and efficient in-house NGS analysis, Genedata Selector helps organizations accelerate decision-making, strengthen biosafety strategies, and maintain momentum across biologics development and manufacturing.  

FAQs

Adventitious contamination refers to the unintended introduction of contaminants, most commonly viruses, into a biologics manufacturing process. Such contaminants can originate from raw materials, cell substrates, manufacturing equipment, or environmental exposure. Because biologics are produced in living systems, rigorous biosafety testing is required to detect and control adventitious agents and protect patient safety. 

Next‑generation sequencing (NGS) virus detection uses high‑throughput sequencing technologies to analyze nucleic acids present in a sample. Unlike targeted methods, NGS does not rely on predefined detection targets, enabling the identification of both known and unknown viral sequences. This makes NGS a useful approach for broad and unbiased viral detection in biosafety testing. 

PCR‑based assays are highly sensitive but inherently targeted, meaning they can detect only viruses for which specific primers are designed. NGS, by contrast, enables unbiased detection across a wide range of viral genomes without prior assumptions about what may be present. As a result, NGS can identify unexpected or unknown viral contaminants that targeted PCR assays may miss. 

Adventitious agents are tested using a combination of methods, including in vivo animal assays, indicator cell‑based infectivity assays, nucleic acid technology (NAT) methods such as PCR, and increasingly NGS‑based approaches. Manufacturers typically apply these methods at multiple stages of production to support comprehensive biosafety testing in line with regulatory expectations. 

Adventitious pathogens are unintended agents  that contaminate biologics manufacturing processes. These may include viruses, mycoplasma, bacteria, or other microbial agents. Viral contaminants are of particular concern in biologics manufacturing due to their potential impact on product safety, manufacturing continuity, and regulatory compliance. 

References

  1. Barone, P. W., Wiebe, M. E., Leung, J. C., Hussein, I. T. M., Keumurian, F. J., Bouressa, J., Brussel, A., Chen, D., Chong, M. K. C., Dehghani, H., Fishman, J. A., Kearns, P., Kelly, P. S., Kleiboeker, S., McClure, M. O., Meisel, H., Munro, T. P., Norling, L. A., Patil, S. D., … Hollister, J. R. (2020). Viral contamination in biologic manufacture and implications for emerging therapies. Nature Biotechnology, 38(5), 563–572. 
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0507-2  
     
  2. Garnick, R. L. (1996). Experience with viral contamination in cell culture. Developmental Biology Standardization, 88, 49–56.  
     
  3. Barone, P. W., Keumurian, F. J., Neufeld, C., Koenigsberg, A., Kiss, R., Leung, J., Wiebe, M., Ait-Belkacem, R., Azimpour Tabrizi, C., Barbirato, C., Beurdeley, P., Brussel, A., Cassart, J.-P., Cote, C., Deneyer, N., Dheenadhayalan, V., Diaz, L., Geiselhoeringer, A., Gilleece, M. M., … Springs, S. L. (2022). Historical evaluation of the in vivo adventitious virus test and its potential for replacement with next-generation sequencing (NGS). Biologicals, 81, Article 101661. 
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2022.11.003 
     
  4. Müllberg, J. (2020). Rapid methods for adventitious virus detection: Acceleration of clinical timelines ("speed to patient"). AmericanPharmaceutical Review. 
     
  5. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). (2023) ICH Q5A(R2) viral safety evaluation of biotechnology products derived from cell lines of human or animal origin. 
     
  6. Charlebois, R. L., Sathiamoorthy, S., Logvinoff, C., Gisonni‑Lex, L., Mallet, L., & Ng, S. H. S. (2020). Sensitivity and breadth of detection of high-throughput sequencing for adventitious virus detection. npj Vaccines, 5, Article 61. 
     
  7. Tsinda, E. K., Swofford, C. A., Strutt, J. P. B., Sangerman, J., Roushangar, R., Li, A., Gomez, L. M., Bousquet, A. N., Neufeld, C., Wolfrum, J. M., Han, J., Williams, R. B. H., Sinskey, A. J., Barone, P. W., & Springs, S. L. (2025) A sensitive sample preparation pipeline for adventitious virus detection using Oxford Nanopore sequencing. Molecular Therapy: Methods & Clinical Development, 33.   
    https://doi.org/0.1016/j.omtm.2025.101478 
     
  8. Chin, P.-J., Tsou, J.-H., Armstrong, A., Deneyer, N., Zanda, V., Ayama-Canden, S., Colinet, A.-S., Fuentes, S. M., Korokhov, N., Lambert, C., Lavorgna, A., Noll, M., Olgiati, S., Protz, M., Shaid, S., Sohrabi, A., Whiteman, M., & Khan, A. S. (2025). Evaluation of high-throughput sequencing for replacing the conventional adventitious virus detection assays used for biologics. npj Vaccines, 11, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-025-01351-2 
     
  9. World Health Organization. (2013). Recommendations to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of live attenuated yellow fever vaccines. Annex 5, TRS No 978. 
     
  10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (2010). Characterization and qualification of cell substrates and other biological materials used in the production of viral vaccines for infectious disease indications (Guidance for Industry).  
     
  11. European Pharmacopeia Commission. (2014). European Pharmacopoeia (Chapter 5.2.3: Cell substrates for the production of vaccines for human use).