Back

Identifying differential effects from eleven mixing techniques on mRNA lipid nanoparticle physicochemistry and biological performance

Bethiana, T.; Aljabbari, A.; Li, Y.; Mitra, H.; Baghbanbashi, M.; Harris, G.; Dasaro, S.; Masoomi, F.; Vago, F.; Hartzler, S.; Figueiredo, M.; Metskas, L. A.; Vlachos, P.; Ardekani, A.; Yeo, Y.; Ristroph, K.

2025-11-09 bioengineering
10.1101/2025.11.07.687311 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulation requires a mixing step. Many studies, especially from academic groups, utilize either microfluidic mixers or hand mixing to prepare LNPs, but commercial-scale processes use turbulent-flow mixers. This discrepancy in mixing techniques has been underexplored, as LNPs made by different techniques may exhibit different performance, such that bench-scale results cannot be replicated using materials manufactured at scale. We here isolate and interrogate the effect of primary mixing. Lipid nanoparticles are produced from ten mixers (one used in two ways), holding all other formulation parameters constant, to directly compare across techniques. LNPs produced from the different mixers exhibit widely different physical properties and biological performance. Notably, manual pipetting common in academic practice yields particles that do not resemble those produces by turbulent-flow mixers. Findings are connected mechanistically to physicochemical characteristics that arise from the different flow regimes. Further establishing the relationship between mixing and LNP properties is critical. Graphical abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=132 SRC="FIGDIR/small/687311v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (33K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@79cac0org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1ee037eorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@12763eforg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@111e394_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 14 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.