Rapid determination of general cell status, cell viability, and optimal harvest time in eukaryotic cell cultures by impedance flow cytometry

  • Christian Opitz
  • Grit Schade
  • Silvan Kaufmann
  • Marco Di Berardino
  • Marcel OttigerEmail author
  • Stephan GrzesiekEmail author
Methods and protocols


The determination of cell viability is essential to many areas of life sciences and biotechnology. Typically, cell viability measurements are based on the optical analysis of stained cells, which requires additional labeling steps and is hard to implement online. Frequency-dependent impedance flow cytometry (IFC) provides a label-free, fast, and reliable alternative to determine cell viability at the single cell level based on the Coulter principle. Here, we describe the application of IFC to eukaryotic cell cultures and compare the results to commonly used staining methods. Yeast cell parameters were assessed in normal and heat-inactivated cells as well as in alcoholic fermentation and long-term batch cultures providing a precise and fast determination of the cell viability and further quantitative measures of the cell culture status. As an important new application, we have investigated recombinant protein production in the widely used baculovirus insect cell expression system. The IFC analysis revealed the presence of a subpopulation of cells, which correlates with the protein expression yield, but it is not detectable with conventional optical cell counters. We tentatively identify this subpopulation as cells in the late phase of infection. Their detection can serve as a predictor for the optimal time point of harvest. The IFC technique should be generally applicable to many eukaryotic cell cultures in suspension, possibly also implemented online.


Insect cells Yeast Viability Cell density Microfluidics Single cell Fermentation Bioprocessing Label-free Recombinant expression 



We thank Alexandra Meng for valuable suggestions on the manuscript and Doppelleu Boxer AG for providing yeast samples from their large-scale production tank.

Author contributions

Christian Opitz, Grit Schade, Marcel Ottiger, and Stephan Grzesiek designed the study. Christian Opitz, Grit Schade, and Silvan Kaufmann carried out data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. Marco Di Berardino, Marcel Ottiger, and Stephan Grzesiek participated in data interpretation. Christian Opitz, Grit Schade, Silvan Kaufmann, Marco Di Berardino, Marcel Ottiger, and Stephan Grzesiek wrote the manuscript.

Funding information

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 31-173089 to S.G.).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Grit Schade, Silvan Kaufmann, Marco Di Berardino, and Marcel Ottiger are employees of Amphasys AG, Root, Switzerland. Christian Opitz and Stephan Grzesiek declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

253_2019_10046_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (882 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 881 kb)


  1. Ansorge S, Esteban G, Schmid G (2007) On-line monitoring of infected Sf-9 insect cell cultures by scanning permittivity measurements and comparison with off-line biovolume measurements. Cytotechnology 55:115–124. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbau J (2017) Continuous suspension cell culture monitoring in bioreactors using quantitative phase imaging. 1–1Google Scholar
  3. Cadena-Herrera D, Esparza-De Lara JE, Ramírez-Ibañez ND, López-Morales CA, Pérez NO, Flores-Ortiz LF, Medina-Rivero E (2015) Validation of three viable-cell counting methods: manual, semi-automated, and automated. Biotechnol Rep (Amst) 7:9–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheung KC, Di Berardino M, Schade-Kampmann G, Hebeisen M, Pierzchalski A, Bocsi J, Mittag A, Tárnok A (2010) Microfluidic impedance-based flow cytometry. Cytometry A 77:648–666. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A (2013) Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One 8:e72944. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Crocetti S, Beyer C, Unternährer S, Benavides Damm T, Schade-Kampmann G, Hebeisen M, Di Berardino M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A (2014) Impedance flow cytometry gauges proliferative capacity by detecting TRPC1 expression. Cytometry A 85:525–536. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. David F, Hebeisen M, Schade G, Franco-Lara E, Di Berardino M (2012) Viability and membrane potential analysis of Bacillus megaterium cells by impedance flow cytometry. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:483–492. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Berardino M (2010) The Microflow Cytometer. In: Ligler FS, Kim JS (eds) Electrical detection in microfluidic flow cytometers. Pan Stanford, p. 379Google Scholar
  9. Elmore S (2007) Apoptosis: a review of programmed cell death. Toxicol Pathol 35:495–516. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Franke B, Opitz C, Isogai S, Grahl A, Delgado L, Gossert AD, Grzesiek S (2018) Production of isotope-labeled proteins in insect cells for NMR. J Biomol NMR 71:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gawad S, Schild L, Renaud P (2001) Micromachined impedance spectroscopy flow cytometer for cell analysis and particle sizing. Lab Chip 1:76–82. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gawad S, Cheung K, Seger U, Bertsch A, Renaud P (2004) Dielectric spectroscopy in a micromachined flow cytometer: theoretical and practical considerations. Lab Chip 4:241–251. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Heidmann I, Di Berardino M (2017) Impedance flow cytometry as a tool to analyze microspore and pollen quality. Methods Mol Biol 1669:339–354. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heidmann I, Schade-Kampmann G, Lambalk J, Ottiger M, Di Berardino M (2016) Impedance flow cytometry: a novel technique in pollen analysis. PLoS One 11:e0165531. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Khan F (2003) Letter to the Editor: 1H, 15N and 13C backbone assignment of the green fluorescent protein (GFP). J Biomol NMR 26:281–282. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Küttel C, Nascimento E, Demierre N, Silva T, Braschler T, Renaud P, Oliva AG (2007) Label-free detection of Babesia bovis infected red blood cells using impedance spectroscopy on a microfabricated flow cytometer. Acta Trop 102:63–68. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mernier G, Piacentini N, Tornay R, Buffi N, Renaud P (2011) Cell viability assessment by flow cytometry using yeast as cell model. Sensors Actuators B Chem 154:160–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Reilly DR, Miller LK, Luckow VA (1994) Baculovirus expression vectors: a laboratory manual. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Opitz C, Isogai S, Grzesiek S (2015) An economic approach to efficient isotope labeling in insect cells using homemade 15N-, 13C- and 2H-labeled yeast extracts. J Biomol NMR 62:373–385. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pierzchalski A, Hebeisen M, Mittag A, Bocsi J, Di Berardino M, Tárnok A (2012) Label-free hybridoma cell culture quality control by a chip-based impedance flow cytometer. Lab Chip 12:4533–4543. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schade-Kampmann G, Huwiler A, Hebeisen M, Hessler T, Di Berardino M (2008) On-chip non-invasive and label-free cell discrimination by impedance spectroscopy. Cell Prolif 41:830–840. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schott L, Sommer C, Wittek J, Myagmar K, Walther T, Baßler M (2015) Cell size discrimination based on the measurement of the equilibrium velocity in rectangular microchannels. Micromachines 6:634–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart GG (2017) Yeast viability and vitality. In: Brewing and distilling yeasts. Springer, pp 147–165Google Scholar
  24. Teixeira AP, Oliveira R, Alves PM, Carrondo MJT (2009) Advances in on-line monitoring and control of mammalian cell cultures: supporting the PAT initiative. Biotechnol Adv 27:726–732. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomson K, Bhat A, Carvell J (2015) Comparison of a new digital imaging technique for yeast cell counting and viability assessments with traditional methods. J Inst Brew 121:231–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tibayrenc P, Preziosi-Belloy L, Roger J-M, Ghommidh C (2010) Assessing yeast viability from cell size measurements? J Biotechnol 149:74–80. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wasilko DJ, Lee SE, Stutzman-Engwall KJ, Reitz BA, Emmons TL, Mathis KJ, Bienkowski MJ, Tomasselli AG, Fischer HD (2009) The titerless infected-cells preservation and scale-up (TIPS) method for large-scale production of NO-sensitive human soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) from insect cells infected with recombinant baculovirus. Protein Expr Purif 65:122–132. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wegener J, Keese CR, Giaever I (2000) Electric Cell-Substrate Impedance Sensing (ECIS) as a noninvasive means to monitor the kinetics of cell spreading to artificial surfaces. Exp Cell Res 259:158–166. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei N, Sommer B (2013) Chapter 7: Cell viability measurements. In: Flickinger MC (ed) Upstream industrial biotechnology, Volume Set. Wiley, p 1854Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Focal Area Structural Biology and Biophysics, BiozentrumUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.AmphasysRootSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations