4.6 Article

Karyotype variation of CHO host cell lines over time in culture characterized by chromosome counting and chromosome painting

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
Volume 115, Issue 1, Pages 165-173

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.26453

Keywords

CHO; chromosome painting; cytogenetic; host cell lines; karyotype

Funding

  1. Austrian Centre of Industrial Biotechnology
  2. Austrian BMWFW
  3. BMVIT
  4. SFG
  5. Standortagentur Tirol
  6. Government of Lower Austria
  7. Business Agency Vienna
  8. Boehringer Ingelheim, Global Technology Management
  9. Forschungsforderungsgesellschaft

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genomic rearrangements are a common phenomenon in rapidly growing cell lines such as Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, a feature that in the context of production of biologics may lead to cell line and product instability. Few methods exist to assess such genome wide instability. Here, we use the population distribution of chromosome numbers per cell as well as chromosome painting to quantify the karyotypic variation in several CHO host cell lines. CHO-S, CHO-K1 8mM glutamine, and CHO-K1 cells adapted to grow in media containing no glutamine were analyzed over up to 6 months in culture. All three cell lines were clearly distinguishable by their chromosome number distribution and by the specific chromosome rearrangements that were present in each population. Chromosome Painting revealed a predominant karyotype for each cell line at the start of the experiment, completed by a large number of variants present in each population. Over time in culture, the predominant karyotype changed for CHO-S and CHO-K1, with the diversity increasing and new variants appearing, while CHO-K1 0mM Gln preferred chromosome pattern increased in percent of the population over time. As control, Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts were shown to also contain an increasing number of variants over time in culture.

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