4.3 Article

Feed Development for Fed-Batch CHO Production Process by Semisteady State Analysis

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 797-804

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/btpr.362

关键词

cell culture; glucose and glutamine metabolism; feeding strategy and continuous mode

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Semisteady state cultures are useful for studying cell physiology and facilitating media development. Two semisteady states with a viable cell density of 5.5 million cells/mL were obtained in CHO cell cultures and compared with a fed-hatch mode control. In the first semisteady state, the culture was maintained at 5 mM glucose and 0.5 mM glutamine. The second condition had threefold higher concentrations of both nutrients, which. led to a 10% increase in lactate production, a 78% increase in ammonia production, and a 30% reduction in cell growth rate. The differences between the two semisteady states indicate that maintaining relatively low levels of glucose and glutamine can reduce the production of lactate and ammonia. Specific amino acid production and consumption indicated further metabolic differences between the two semisteady states and fed-batch mode. The results from this experiment shed light in the feeding strategy for a fed-batch process and feed medium enhancement. The fed-batch process utilizes a feeding strategy whereby the feed added was based on glucose levels in the bioreactor. To evaluate if a fixed feed strategy would improve robustness and process consistency, two alternative,feeding strategies were implemented. A constant volume feed of 30% or 40% of the initial culture volume fed over the course of cell culture was evaluated. The results indicate that a constant volumetric-based feed can be more beneficial than a glucose-based feeding strategy. This study demonstrated the applicability of analyzing CHO cultures in semisteady state for feed enhancement and continuous process improvement. (C) 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 26: 797-804, 2010

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

4.3
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