4.6 Article

Metabolic-flux analysis of continuously cultured hybridoma cells using 13CO2 mass spectrometry in combination with 13C-lactate nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and metabolite balancing

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 528-538

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.1145

关键词

nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy; metabolic fluxes; metabolite balances; mass spectrometry; mammalian-cell culture; isotopic tracer; pentose phosphate pathway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein production of mammalian-cell culture is limited due to accumulation of waste products such as lactate, CO2, and ammonia. In this study, the intracellular fluxes of hybridoma cells are measured to determine the amount by which various metabolic pathways contribute to the secretion of waste products derived from glucose. Continuously cultured hybridoma cells are grown in medium containing either 1-C-13-, 2-C-13-, or 6-C-13-glucose. The uptake and production rates of amino acids, glucose, ammonia, O-2, and CO2 as well as the cellular composition are measured. In addition, the C-13 distribution of the lactate produced and alanine produced by the hybridomas is determined by H-1-NMR spectroscopy, and the (CO2)-C-13/(CO2)-C-12 ratio is measured by on-line mass spectrometry. These data are used to calculate the intracellular fluxes of the glycolysis, the pentose phosphate pathway, the TCA cycle, and fluxes involved in amino acid metabolism. It is shown that: (i) approximately 20% of the glucose consumed is channeled through the pentose shunt; (ii) the glycolysis pathway contributes the most to lactate production, and most of the CO2 is produced by the TCA cycle; (iii) the pyruvate-carboxylase flux is negligibly small; and (iv) the malic-enzyme flux is estimated to be 10% of the glucose uptake rate. Based on these flux data suggestions are made to engineer a more efficient glucose metabolism in mammalian cells. (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Biotechnol Bioeng 74: 528-538, 2001.

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

4.6
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