4.6 Article

Hydrocyclones as cell retention device for CHO perfusion processes in single-use bioreactors

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
Volume 117, Issue 7, Pages 1915-1928

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.27335

Keywords

CHO cells; hydrocyclone; perfusion; separation efficiency; single-use bioreactor

Funding

  1. GE Healthcare [Coppetec-PEQ20761] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro [Cientistas do Nosso Estado / 202.973/2015] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [Doutorado GD /140752/2017-0, PQ-1D / 312328/2013-3] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior [Programa de Excelência Acadêmica - PROEX] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a hydrocyclone (HC) especially designed for mammalian cell separation was applied for the separation of Chinese hamster ovary cells. The effect of key features on the separation efficiency, such as type of pumphead in the peristaltic feed pump, use of an auxiliary pump to control the perfusate flow rate, and tubing size in the recirculation loop were evaluated in batch separation tests. Based on these preliminary batch tests, the HC was then integrated to 50-L disposable bioreactor bags. Three perfusion runs were performed, including one where perfusion was started from a low-viability late fed-batch culture, and viability was restored. The successive runs allowed optimization of the HC-bag configuration, and cultivations with 20-25 days duration at cell concentrations up to 50 x 10(6)cells/ml were performed. Separation efficiencies up to 96% were achieved at pressure drops up to 2.5 bar, with no issues of product retention. To our knowledge, this is the first report in literature of high cell densities obtained with a HC integrated to a disposable perfusion bioreactor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available