4.5 Article

Integrated economic and experimental framework for screening of primary recovery technologies for high cell density CHO cultures

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 899-909

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/biot.201500336

关键词

Bioseparation; High cell density; Mammalian cell culture; Primary recovery; Tangential flow filtration

资金

  1. [EP/G034656/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/I033270/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I033270/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increases in mammalian cell culture titres and densities have placed significant demands on primary recovery operation performance. This article presents a methodology which aims to screen rapidly and evaluate primary recovery technologies for their scope for technically feasible and cost-effective operation in the context of high cell density mammalian cell cultures. It was applied to assess the performance of current (centrifugation and depth filtration options) and alternative (tangential flow filtration (TFF)) primary recovery strategies. Cell culture test materials (CCTM) were generated to simulate the most demanding cell culture conditions selected as a screening challenge for the technologies. The performance of these technology options was assessed using lab scale and ultra scale-down (USD) mimics requiring 25-110mL volumes for centrifugation and depth filtration and TFF screening experiments respectively. A centrifugation and depth filtration combination as well as both of the alternative technologies met the performance selection criteria. A detailed process economics evaluation was carried out at three scales of manufacturing (2,000L, 10,000L, 20,000L), where alternative primary recovery options were shown to potentially provide a more cost-effective primary recovery process in the future. This assessment process and the study results can aid technology selection to identify the most effective option for a specific scenario.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据