Physiological responses of CHO cells to repetitive hydrodynamic stress

Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Volumn 103, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1103-1117

  Godoy Silva, Ruben ^a,b,c   Chalmers, Jeffrey J ^b   Casnocha, Susan A ^a   Bass, Laura A ^a   Ma, Ningning ^a  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

^b Ohio State University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA   (Colombia)

Author keywords

CHO; Glycosylation; Hydrodynamic stress; Mammalian cell culture; Physiological response; Shear sensitivity

Indexed keywords

CHO; HYDRODYNAMIC STRESS; MAMMALIAN CELL CULTURE; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; SHEAR SENSITIVITY;

ANIMAL CELL CULTURE; BATCH DATA PROCESSING; BIOREACTORS; CELL CULTURE; CELL DEATH; CELL MEMBRANES; CLONING; ENERGY DISSIPATION; ESTERIFICATION; GLYCOSYLATION; GROWTH KINETICS; HYDRODYNAMICS; INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS; MAMMALS; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES; PHYSIOLOGICAL MODELS; SURFACE PLASMON RESONANCE; TANKS (CONTAINERS);

FLUID DYNAMICS;

GLUCOSE; LACTATE DEHYDROGENASE; METHIONINE; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY;

ANIMAL CELL; ANTIBODY PRODUCTION; APOPTOSIS; ARTICLE; BIOREACTOR; CELL CLONE; CELL DAMAGE; CELL DENSITY; CELL GRANULE; CELL GROWTH; CELL SIZE; CELL VIABILITY; CHO CELL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENZYME RELEASE; FED BATCH CULTURE; GLUCOSE METABOLISM; GLYCOSYLATION; GROWTH CURVE; HYDRODYNAMICS; NONHUMAN; PROTEIN GLYCOSYLATION; QUALITY CONTROL;

ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; CHO CELLS; CRICETINAE; CRICETULUS; EUKARYOTIC CELLS; GLYCOSYLATION; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; STRESS, MECHANICAL; STRESS, PHYSIOLOGICAL;

MAMMALIA;

EID: 68149137219     PISSN: 00063592     EISSN: 10970290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bit.22339     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Al-Rubeai M, Singh RP, Goldman MH, Emery AN. 1995. Death mechanisms of animal cells in conditions of intensive agitation. Biotechnol Bioeng 45:463-472.
2. Augenstein DC, Sinskey AJ, Wang DIC. 1971. Effect of shear on the death of two strains of mammalian tissue cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 13:409-418.
3. Boulton-Stone JM, Blake JR. 1993. Gas bubbles bursting at a free surface. J Fluid Mech 254:437-466.
4. Chalmers JJ. 2000. Animal cell culture, effects of agitation and aeration on cell adaptation. In: Spier R, Griffiths JB, Scragg AH, editors. Encyclopedia of cell technology. New York: Wiley. pp. 41-51.
5. Chisti Y. 1999. Shear sensitivity. In: Flickinger MC, Drew SW, editors. Encyclopedia of bioprocess technology: Fermentation, biocatalysis, and bioseparation, vol.5. New York: Wiley. pp. 2379-2406.
6. Chisti Y. 2000. Animal-cell damage in sparged bioreactors. Trends Biotechnol 18:420-432.
7. Datamonitor Plc, Monoclonal antibodies report part I. Reference code DMHC2291. 2007.
8. DeMali KA, Wennerberg K, Burridge K. 2003. Integrin signaling to the actin cytoskeleton. Curr Opin Cell Biol 15:572-582.
9. Egea G, Lazaro-Dieguez F, Vilella M. 2006. Actin dynamics at the Golgi complex in mammalian cells. Curr Opin Cell Biol 18:168-178. (Pubitemid 43375885)
10. Garcia-Briones MA, Brodkey RS, Chalmers JJ. 1994. Computer simulations of the rupture of a gas bubble at a gas-liquid interface and its implications in animal cell damage. Chem Eng Sci 49:2301-2320.
11. Godoy-Silva R, Mollet M, Chalmers JJ. 2009. Evaluation of the effect of chronic hydrodynamical stresses on cultures on suspension of CHO cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 102:1119-1130.
12. Gregoriades N, Clay J, Ma N, Koelling K, Chalmers JJ. 2000. Cell damage of microcarrier cultures as a function of local energy dissipation created by a rapid extensional flow. Biotechnol Bioeng 69:171-182. (Pubitemid 30430088)
13. Hu W, Gladue R, Hansen J, Wojnar C, Chalmers JJ. 2007. The sensitivity of the Dinoflagellate Crypthecodinium cohnii to transient hydrodynamic forces. Biotechnol Prog 23:1355-1362.
14. Joshi JB, Elias CB, Patole MS. 1996. Role of hydrodynamic shear in the cultivation of animal, plant and microbial cells. Chem Eng J 62:121-141. (Pubitemid 126663423)
15. Keane JT, Ryan D, Gray PP. 2003. Effect of shear stress on expression of a recombinant protein by Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 81:211-220.
16. Ludwig A, Tomeczkowski J, Kretzmer G. 1992. Influence of shear stress on adherent mammalian cells during division. Biotechnol Lett 14:881-884.
17. Ma N. 2002. Quantitative studies of the bubble-cell interactions and the mechanisms of mammalian cell damage from hydrodynamic forces. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University.
18. Ma N, Koelling KW, Chalmers JJ. 2002. Fabrication and use of a transient, contractional flow device to quantify the sensitivity of mammalian and insect, cells to hydrodynamic forces. Biotechnol Bioeng 80:428-437. (Pubitemid 35230937)
19. Ma N, Mollet M, Chalmers JJ. 2006. Aeration, mixing and hydrodynamics in bioreactors. In: Ozturk S, Hu W, editors. Cell culture technology for pharmaceutical and cell-based therapies. NY: Marcel Dekker. pp. 2379-2406.
20. McDowell CL, Papoutsakis ET. 1998. Increased agitation intensity increases CD13 receptor surface content and mRNA levels, and alters the metabolism of HL60 cells cultured in stirred tank bioreactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 60:239-250. (Pubitemid 28432367)
21. McQueen A, Bailey JE. 1989. Influence of serum level, cell-line, flow type and viscosity on flow-induced lysis of suspended mammalian-cells. Biotechnol Lett 11:531-536.
22. McQueen A, Meilhoc E, Bailey JE. 1987. Flow effects on the viability and lysis of suspended mammalian cells. Biotechnol Lett 9:831-836. (Pubitemid 18003533)
23. Mollet M, Ma N, Zhao Y, Brodkey R, Taticek R, Chalmers JJ. 2004. Bioprocess equipment: Characterization of energy dissipation rate and its potential to damage cells. Biotechnol Prog 20:1437-1448. (Pubitemid 39351328)
24. Mollet M, Godoy-Silva R, Berdugo C, Chalmers JJ. 2007. Acute hydrodynamic forces and apoptosis: A complex question. Biotechnol Bioeng 98:772-788. (Pubitemid 350032682)
25. Motobu M, Wang P, Matsumura M. 1998. Effect of shear stress on recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cells. J Ferment Bioeng 85:190-195. (Pubitemid 28207549)
26. Ranjan V, Waterbury R, Xiao Z, Diamond SL. 1996. Fluid shear stress induction of the transcriptional activator c-fos in human and bovine cells, HeLa and Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:383-390. (Pubitemid 26039009)
27. Senger RS, Karim MN. 2003. Effect of shear force on intrinsic CHO culture state and glycosylation of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator protein. Biotechnol Prog 19:1199-1209. (Pubitemid 37007602)
28. Thomas CR, Al-Rubeai M, Zhang Z. 1994. Prediction of mechanical damage to animal cells in turbulence. Cytotechnology 15:329-335.
29. Varley J, Birch J. 1999. Reactor design for large-scale suspension animal cell culture. Cytotechnology 29:177-205. (Pubitemid 29207781)
30. Venkat RV, Stock LR, Chalmers JJ. 1996. Study of hydrodynamics in microcarrier culture spinner vessels: A particle tracking velocimetry approach. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:456-466.
31. Vickroy B, Lorenz K, Kelly W. 2007. Modeling shear damage to suspended CHO cells during cross-flow filtration. Biotechnol Prog 23:194-199. (Pubitemid 46293504)
32. Wernersson ES, Tragardh C. 1999. Scale-up of Rushton turbine-agitated tanks. Chem Eng Sci 54:4245-4256.
33. Wurm F. 2004. Production of recombinant protein therapeutics in cultivated mammalian cells. Nature Biotechnol 22:1393-1398. (Pubitemid 39482858)
34. Zhang Z, Al-Rubeai M, Thomas CR. 1993. Estimation of disruption of animal cells by turbulent capillary flow. Biotechnol Bioeng 42:987-993. (Pubitemid 23288704)
35. Zhou G, Kresta SM. 1996a. Impact of tank geometry on the maximum turbulence energy dissipation rate for impellers. AIChE J 42:2476-2490. (Pubitemid 126452361)
36. Zhou G, Kresta SM. 1996b. Distribution of energy between convective and turbulent flow for three frequently used impellers. Chem Eng Res Deg 74:379-389. (Pubitemid 126494598)