Biotechnology Letters

, 33:2325 | Cite as

Expansion of human mesenchymal stem cells on microcarriers

  • Christopher J. Hewitt
  • Ken Lee
  • Alvin W. Nienow
  • Robert J. Thomas
  • Mark Smith
  • Colin R. Thomas
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The effects on human mesenchymal stem cell growth of choosing either of two spinner flask impeller geometries, two microcarrier concentrations and two cell concentrations (seeding densities) were investigated. Cytodex 3 microcarriers were not damaged when held at the minimum speed, NJS, for their suspension, using either impeller, nor was there any observable damage to the cells. The maximum cell density was achieved after 8–10 days of culture with up to a 20-fold expansion in terms of cells per microcarrier. An increase in microcarrier concentration or seeding density generally had a deleterious or neutral effect, as previously observed for human fibroblast cultures. The choice of impeller was significant, as was incorporation of a 1 day delay before agitation to allow initial attachment of cells. The best conditions for cell expansion on the microcarriers in the flasks were 3,000 microcarriers ml−1 (ca. 1 g dry weight l−1), a seeding density of 5 cells per microcarrier with a 1 day delay before agitation began at NJS (30 rpm), using a horizontally suspended flea impeller with an added vertical paddle. These findings were interpreted using Kolmogorov’s theory of isotropic turbulence.

Keywords

Human mesenchymal stem cells Microcarriers Regenerative medicine bioprocessing Spinner flasks 

References

  1. Abranches E, Bekman E, Henrique D, Cabral JMS (2007) Expansion of mouse embryonic stem cells on microcarriers. Biotechnol Bioeng 96:1211–1222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allegrucci C, Young LE (2007) Differences between human embryonic stem cell lines. Hum Reprod Update 13:103–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker C, Culme-Seymour E, Dalton S, Hayek A, Genbacev O (2011) The year in regenerative medicine. Regen Med 6:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler M (1996) Cell line and culture monitoring. The basics: animal cell culture and technology. IRL Press, New York, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  5. Cherry RS, Papoutsakis ET (1986) Hydrodynamic effects on cells in agitated tissue culture reactors. Bioprocess Eng 1:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherry RS, Papoutsakis ET (1988) Physical mechanisms of cell damage in microcarrier cell culture bioreactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 32:1001–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croughan MS, Hamel J-F, Wang DIC (1987) Hydrodynamic effects on animal cells grown in microcarrier cultures. Biotechnol Bioeng 29:130–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Croughan MS, Hamel J-F, Wang DIC (1988) Effect of microcarrier concentration in animal cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 32:975–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croughan MS, Sayre ES, Wang DIC (1989) Viscous reduction of turbulent damage in animal cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 33:862–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frauenschuh S, Reichmann E, Ibold Y, Goetz PM, Sittinger M, Ringe J (2007) A microcarrier-based cultivation system for expansion of primary mesenchymal stem cells. Biotechnol Prog 23:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GE Healthcare (2009) Cytodex™ surface microcarriers. Data file 18-1060-61 AFGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu WS, Meier J, Wang DIC (1985) A mechanistic analysis of the inoculum requirement for the cultivation of mammalian cells on microcarriers. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:585–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ibrahim S, Nienow AW (2004) Suspension of microcarriers for cell culture with axial flow impellers. Chem Eng Res Des 82:1082–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kresta SM, Brodkey RS (2004) Turbulence in mixing applications. In: Paul EL, Atiemo-Obeng VA, Kresta SM (eds) Handbook of industrial mixing, Chap 2. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, pp 19–87Google Scholar
  15. Kumar N, Gammell P, Meleady P, Henry M, Clynes M (2008) Differential protein expression following low temperature culture of suspension cho-k1 cells. BMC Biotechnol 8:42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagata S (1975) Mixing; principles and applications. Kodansha, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  17. Nienow AW (1997a) The suspension of solid particles. In: Harnby N, Edwards MF, Nienow (eds) Mixing in the process industries, Chap 16, 2nd edn (paperback revision). Butterworth Heinemann, London, pp 364–393Google Scholar
  18. Nienow AW (1997b) The mixer as a reactor — liquid/solid systems. In: Harnby N, Edwards MF, Nienow (eds) Mixing in the process industries, Chap17, 2nd edn (paperback revision). Butterworth Heinemann, London, pp 394–411Google Scholar
  19. Nienow AW (2006) Reactor engineering in large scale animal cell culture. Cytotechnology 50:9–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nienow AW (2010) Impeller selection: animal cell culture, In: Encyclopedia of industrial biotechnology, vol 5. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 2959–2971Google Scholar
  21. Nienow AW, Conti R (1978) Particle abrasion at high solids concentration in stirred vessels. Chem Eng Sci 33:1077–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oh SKW, Nienow AW, Al-Rubeai M, Emery AN (1992) Further studies of the culture of mouse hybridomas in an agitated bioreactor with and without continuous sparging. J Biotechnol 22:245–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oh SK, Chen AK, Mok Y, Chen X, Lim UM, Chin A, Choo AB, Reuveny S (2009) Long-term microcarrier suspension cultures of human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Res 2:219–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul EL, Atiemo-Obeng VA, Kresta SM (2004) Handbook of industrial mixing. Wiley-Interscience, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  25. Rushton JH, Costich EW, Everett HJ (1950) Power characteristics of mixing impellers. Chem Eng Prog. 46:467–471Google Scholar
  26. Schutt C, Furll B, Stelter F, Jack RS, Witt S (1997) CHO transfectants produce large amounts of recombinant protein in suspension culture. J Immunol Methods 204:99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sucosky P, Osorio DF, Brown JB, Neitzel GP (2004) Fluid mechanics of a spinner-flask bioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 85:34–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas CR, Zhang Z (1998) The effect of hydrodynamics on biological material. In: Galindo E, Ramirez OT (eds) Advances in bioprocess engineering. Kluwer, London, pp 137–169Google Scholar
  29. Thomson H (2007) Bioprocessing of embryonic stem cells for drug discovery. Trends Biotechnol 25:224–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Venkat RV, Stock LR, Chalmers JJ (1996) Study of hydrodynamic in microcarrier culture spinner vessels: a particle tracking velocimetry approach. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:456–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Hewitt
    • 1
  • Ken Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alvin W. Nienow
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert J. Thomas
    • 1
  • Mark Smith
    • 3
    • 4
  • Colin R. Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, Centre for Biological EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK
  2. 2.School of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Smith and Nephew, York Science ParkYorkUK
  4. 4.AedStem Ltd, BioCentre York Science ParkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations