4.7 Article

A cross-species whole genome siRNA screen in suspension- cultured Chinese hamster ovary cells identifies novel engineering targets

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45159-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. PhD program BioToP (Biomolecular Technology of Proteins) - Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [W1224]
  2. BOKU Vienna Open Access Publishing Fund
  3. Austrian BMWFW
  4. BMVIT
  5. SFG
  6. Standortagentur Tirol
  7. Government of Lower Austria
  8. Business Agency Vienna through the Austrian FFG-COMET-Funding Program
  9. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [ZICTR000041] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  10. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [ZIADK075080] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-throughput siRNA screens were only recently applied to cell factories to identify novel engineering targets which are able to boost cells towards desired phenotypes. While siRNA libraries exist for model organisms such as mice, no CHO-specific library is publicly available, hindering the application of this technique to CHO cells. The optimization of these cells is of special interest, as they are the main host for the production of therapeutic proteins. Here, we performed a cross-species approach by applying a mouse whole-genome siRNA library to CHO cells, optimized the protocol for suspension cultured cells, as this is the industrial practice for CHO cells, and developed an in silico method to identify functioning siRNAs, which also revealed the limitations of using cross-species libraries. With this method, we were able to identify several genes that, upon knockdown, enhanced the total productivity in the primary screen. A second screen validated two of these genes, Rad21 and Chd4, whose knockdown was tested in additional CHO cell lines, confirming the induced high productivity phenotype, but also demonstrating the cell line/clone specificity of engineering effects.

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

4.7
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