4.5 Article

Linear discriminant analysis, partial least squares discriminant analysis, and soft independent modeling of class analogy of experimental and simulated near-infrared spectra of a cultivation medium for mammalian cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMOMETRICS
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cem.3005

关键词

medium powder; near-infrared spectroscopy; PCA-LDA; PLS-DA; SIMCA

资金

  1. New Hungary Development Plan [TAMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, the qualification and control of medium formulations are performed based on simple methods (eg, pH and osmolality measurement of medium solutions), expensive and time-consuming cell culture tests, and the quantification of certain critical compounds by liquid chromatography. In addition to traditional medium qualification tools, relatively new spectroscopic techniques, such as fluorescence spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance, Raman and near-infrared spectroscopies, and combinations of these techniques are increasingly being applied to medium powder investigation. A chemically defined medium powder for Chinese hamster ovary cell cultivation was investigated in this study to determine its response to heat treatments at different temperatures (30 degrees C, 50 degrees C, and 70 degrees C). Because the low availability and high costs of medium powders limit the sample sizes for such experiments, 5 groups of simulated data sets were generated based on the experimental spectra to compare the efficiencies of 3 classification methods: linear discriminant analysis (LDA) based on principal component analysis (PCA), partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), and soft independent modeling of class analogy (SIMCA). In case of these data sets, PCA-LDA showed better results for the classification of experimental spectra than PLS-DA and SIMCA. Moreover, the PLS-DA and SIMCA models yielded different results for different training set groups, while the PCA-LDA model yielded similar results for all training sets.

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

4.5
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