4.6 Article

Calcium Phosphate Transfection Generates Mammalian Recombinant Cell Lines With Higher Specific Productivity Than Polyfection

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 101, 期 5, 页码 937-945

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.21972

关键词

CHO cells; calcium phosphate; polyethylenimine; recombinant protein; specific productivity

资金

  1. Swiss Innovation Agency and Bayer, Inc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transfection with polyethylenimine (PEI) was evaluated as a method for the generation of recombinant I Chinese hamster ovary (CHO DG44) cell lines by direct comparison with calcium phosphate-DNA coprecipitation (CaPO4) using both green fluorescent protein (GFP) and a monoclonal antibody as reporter proteins. Following transfection with a GFP expression vector, the proportion of GFP-positive cells as determined by flow cytometry was fourfold higher for the PEI transfection as compared to the CaPO4 transfection. However, the mean level of transient GFP expression for the cells with the highest level of fluorescence was twofold greater for the CaPO4 transfection. Fluorescence in situ hybridization on metaphase chromosomes from pools of cells grown under selective pressure demonstrated that plasmid integration always occurred at a single site regardless of the transfection method. Importantly, the copy number of integrated plasmids was measurably higher in cells transfected with CaPO4. The efficiency of recombinant cell line recovery under selective pressure was fivefold higher following PEI transfection, but the average specific productivity of a recombinant antibody was about twofold higher for the CaPO4-derived cell lines. Nevertheless, no difference between the two transfection methods was observed in terms of the stability of protein production. These results demonstrated the feasibility of generating recombinant CHO-derived cell lines by PEI transfection. However, this method appeared inferior to CaPO4 transfection with regard to the specific productivity of the recovered cell lines.

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