4.5 Article

Substrate oscillations boost recombinant protein release from Escherichia coli

期刊

BIOPROCESS AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 881-890

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00449-013-1059-3

关键词

Oscillatory feeding; Protein release; Substrate-related stress; Bioprocess technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intracellular production of recombinant proteins in prokaryotes necessitates subsequent disruption of cells for protein recovery. Since the cell disruption and subsequent purification steps largely contribute to the total production cost, scalable tools for protein release into the extracellular space is of utmost importance. Although there are several ways for enhancing protein release, changing culture conditions is rather a simple and scalable approach compared to, for example, molecular cell design. This contribution aimed at quantitatively studying process technological means to boost protein release of a periplasmatic recombinant protein (alkaline phosphatase) from E. coli. Quantitative analysis of protein in independent bioreactor runs could demonstrate that a defined oscillatory feeding profile was found to improve protein release, about 60 %, compared to the conventional constant feeding rate. The process technology included an oscillatory post-induction feed profile with the frequency of 4 min. The feed rate was oscillated triangularly between a maximum (1.3-fold of the maximum feed rate achieved at the end of the fed-batch phase) and a minimum (45 % of the maximum). The significant improvement indicates the potential to maximize the production rate, while this oscillatory feed profile can be easily scaled to industrial processes. Moreover, quantitative analysis of the primary metabolism revealed that the carbon dioxide yield can be used to identify the preferred feeding profile. This approach is therefore in line with the initiative of process analytical technology for science-based process understanding in process development and process control strategies.

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