Comparative investigation of the use of various commercial microcarriers as a substrate for culturing mammalian cells

  • Duygu Ayyildiz-Tamis
  • Kamuran Avcı
  • S. Ismet Deliloglu-Gurhan
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Microcarriers provide large adhesion area allowing high cell densities in bioreactor systems. This study focused on the investigation of cell adhesion and cell growth characteristics of both anchorage-dependent CHO-K1 and anchorage-independent Ag8 myeloma cell lines cultivated on four different microcarriers (Biosilon®, Microhex®, Cytodex 3®, Cytoline 2®) by considering the cell kinetics and physiological data. Experiments were performed in both static and agitated cell culture systems by using 24-well tissue culture plates and then 50-ml spinner flasks. In agitated cultures, the highest specific growth rates (0.026 h for CHO-K1 and 0.061 h for Ag8 cell line) were obtained with Cytodex 3® and Cytoline 2® microcarriers for CHO-K1 and Ag8 cell line, respectively. Metabolic characteristics showed some variation among the cultures with the four microcarriers. The most significant being the higher production of lactate with microcarriers with CHO-K1 cells relative to the Ag8 cells. SEM analyses revealed the differences in the morphology of the cells along with microcarriers. On Cytodex 3® and Cytoline 2®, CHO-K1 cells attached to the substratum through long, slender filopodia, whereas the cells showed a flat morphology by covering the substratum on the Biosilon® and Microhex®. Ag8 cells maintained their spherical shapes throughout the culture for all types of microcarriers. In an attempt to scale-up, productions were carried out in 50-ml spinner flasks. Cytodex 3® (for CHO-K1 cells) and Cytoline 2® (for Ag8 cells) were evaluated. The results demonstrate that high yield of biomass could be achieved through the immobilization of the cells in each culture system. And cell cultures on microcarriers, especially on Cytodex 3® and Cytoline 2®, represented a good potential as microcarriers for larger scale cultures of CHO-K1 and Ag8, respectively. Moreover, owing to the fact that the cell lines and culture media are specific, outcomes will be applicable for other clones derived from the same host cell lines.

Keywords

CHO-K1 Ag8 myeloma Microcarrier Immobilization Spinner flask 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Bilge Hakan ŞEN and Dr. Tülay TÜRK from Ege University, Faculty of Dentistry for their support during the SEM analysis.

References

  1. Arifin M. A.; Mel M.; Karim M. I. A.; Ideris A. Production of Newcastle Disease Virus by Vero Cells Grown on Cytodex 1 Microcarriers in a 2-Litre Stirred Tank Bioreactor. J Biomed Biotechnol 10: 1155–1162; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Ayyıldız D.; Selimoğlu M.; Deliloglu-Gurhan I.; Elibol M. Cultivation of Calcium Alginate Encapsulated Myeloma Cells in Bioreactors. Int J Natural Eng Sci 3: 48–53; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Ayyildız Tamis D.; Nalbantsoy A.; Deliloglu-Gurhan I.; Elibol M. Cultivation of BHK-21 anchorage semi-dependent cell line in different strategies. Turk J Biochem 37: 120–128; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Azma M.; Mohamed M. S.; Mohamad R.; Rahim R. A.; Ariff A. B. Improvements of medium composition for heterotrophic cultivation of green microalgae, Tetraselmis suecica, using response surface methodology. Adv Biochem Eng 53: 187–195; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrias C. C.; Ribeiro C. C.; Lamghari M.; SáMiranda C.; Barbosa M. A. Proliferation, activity, and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells cultured on calcium titanium phosphate microspheres. J Biomed Mater Res-A 72: 57–66; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Chen H.; Fang B.; Hu Z. Simultaneous HPLC Determination of Four Key Metabolites in the Metabolic Pathway for Production of 1,3-Propanediol from Glycerol. J Chromatogr 65: 629–632; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Z.; Lütkemeyer D.; Iding K.; Lehmann J. High-density culture of recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cells producing prothrombin in protein-free medium. Biotechnol Lett 23: 767–770; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu P.; Grunwald G. D. Identification of on Adhesion-Associated Protein of the Retinal Pigment Epithelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 31: 847–856; 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chun B. H.; Chung S. I. Attachment characteristics of normal human cells and virus-infected cells on microcarriers. Cytotechnology 37: 1–12; 2001.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czermak P.; Pörtner R.; Brix A. Special Engineering Aspects. In: Eibl R.; Eibl D.; Pörtner R.; Catapano G.; Czermak P. (eds) Cell and Tissue Reaction Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 83–172; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freshney R. I. Quantitation. In: Freshney R. I. (ed) Culture of Animal Cells. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 335–359; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gódia F.; Cairó J. J. Cell Metabolism. In: Ozturk S. S.; Hu W. S. (eds) Cell Culture Technology For Pharmaceutical and Cell-Based Therapies. 1st ed. CRC Press Taylor&Francis Group, New York, pp 81–112; 2006.Google Scholar
  13. Goldman M. H.; James D. C.; Rendall M.; Ison A. P.; Hoare M.; Bull A. T. Monitoring Recombinant Human Interferon-Gamma N-Glycosylation During Perfused Fluidized-Bed and Stirred-Tank Batch Culture of CHO Cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 60: 596–607; 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffiths B. Scale-Up of Suspension and Anchorage-Dependent Animal Cells. Mol Biotechnol 17: 225–238; 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hendrick V.; Muniz E.; Geuskens G.; Wérenne J. Adhesion, growth and detachment of cells on modified polystyrene surface. Cytotechnology 36: 49–53; 2001.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kenda-Ropson N.; Mention D.; Motte V.; Genlain M.; Miller A.O.A. Microsupport with two-dimensional geometry (2D-MS). 3. In situ determination of the growth kinetics of anchorage-dependent cells by laser diffraction particle sizing (LDPS). Cytotechnology 37:49–53; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. Kong D.; Chen M.; Gentz R.; Zhang J. Cell growth and protein formation on various microcarriers. Cytotechnology 29: 149–156; 1999.Google Scholar
  18. Kwon Y.J.; Peng C.A.; Calcium-alginate gel bead cross-linked with gelatin as microcarrier for anchorage-dependent cell culture. Biotechniques 33:212–218; 2002.Google Scholar
  19. Landauer K.; Dürrschmid M.; Klug H.; Wiederkum S.; Blüml G.; Dier O. D. Detachment factors for enhanced carrier to carrier transfer of CHO cell lines on macroporous microcarriers. Cytotechnology 39: 37–45; 2002.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lenglois S.; Moser M.; Miller A. O. A. Microsupport with two-dimensional geometry (2D-MS). Cytotechnology 44: 47–54; 2004.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merten O. Introduction to animal cell culture technology-past, present and future. Cytotechnology 50: 1–7; 2006.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nalbantsoy A.; Bora K.; Deliloglu-Gurhan I. Metabolic Activity and Monoclonal Antibody Production of Salmonella Enteritidis O and H Antigen Specific Hybridoma Cells in Static Culture. HYBRIDOMA 30: 189–193; 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nam J. H.; Ermonval M.; Sharfstein S. T. Cell Attachment to Microcarriers Affects Growth, Metabolic Activity, and Culture Productivity in Bioreactor Culture. Biotechnol Prog 23: 652–660; 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nam J. H.; Zhang F.; Ermonval M.; Linhardt R. J.; Sharfstein S. T. The Effects of Culture Conditions on the Glycosylation of Secreted Human Placental Alkaline Phosphatase Produced in Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 100: 1178–1193; 2008.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsang S.; Nehru V.; Plieva F. M.; Nandakumar K. S.; Rakshit S. K.; Holmdahl R.; Mattiasson B.; Kumar A. Three-Dimensional Culture for Monoclonal Antibody Production by Hybridoma Cells Immobilized in Macroporous Gel Particles. Biotechnol Prog 24: 1122–1131; 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pörtner R.; Platas O. B.; Fassnacht D.; Nehring D.; Czermak P.; Märkl H. Fixed Bed Reactors for the Cultivation of Mammalian Cells: Design, Performance and Scale-Up. The Open Biotechnol J 1: 41–46; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raffoul T.; Swiech K.; Arantes M. K.; Sousa Á. P. B.; Mendonça R. Z.; Pereira C. A.; Suazo C. A. T. Performance Evaluation of Cho-K1 Cell in Culture Medium Supplemented with Hemolymph. Braz Arch Biol Techn 48: 85–95; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodrigues M. E.; Costa A. R.; Henriques M.; Azeredo J.; Oliveira R. Technological Progresses in Monoclonal Antibody Production Systems. Biotechnol Prog 26: 332–352; 2009.Google Scholar
  29. Russinova A.; Vassilev A.; Davidoff M. Localization and partial characterization of a rat ovarian granulosa cell protein with a monoclonal antibody. Biol Cell 79: 259–264; 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Selimoglu M.; Ayyildiz-Tamis D.; Deliloglu-Gurhan I.; Elibol M. Purification of alginate and feasible production of monoclonal antibodies by the alginate-immobilized hybridoma cells. J Biosci Bioeng 113: 233–238; 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suzuki E.; Ollis D. F. Enhanced Antibody Production at Slowed Growth Rates: Experimental Demonstration and a Simple Structured Model. Biotechnol Prog 6: 231–236; 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swiech K.; da Silva G. M. C.; Zangirolami T. C.; Iemma M. R. C.; Selistre-de-Araújo H. S.; Suazo C. A. T. Evaluating kinetic and physiological features of rCHO-K1 cells cultured on microcarriers for production of a recombinant metalloprotease/disintegrin. Electron J Biotechn 10: 200–210; 2007.Google Scholar
  33. Tanaka A.; Kawamoto T. Cell Immobilization. In: Flickinger M. C.; Drew S. W. (eds) Encyclopedia Of Bioprocess Technology: Fermentation, Biocatalysis, and Bioseparation. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 505–513; 1999.Google Scholar
  34. Varani J.; Fligiel S. E. G.; Inman D. R.; Beals T. F.; Hillegas W. J. Modulation of adhesive properties of DEAE-dextran with laminin. J Biomed Mater Res A 29: 993–997; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voigt A.; Zintl F. Hybridoma cell growth and anti-neuroblastoma monoclonal antibody production in spinner flasks using a protein-free medium with microcarriers. J Biotechnol 68: 213–226; 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner B.; Hillegas J. M.; Brinker D. R.; Horohov D. W.; Antczak D. F. Characterization of monoclonal antibodies to equine interleukin-10 and detection of T regulatory 1 cells in horses. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 122: 57–64; 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang M. Y.; Yang M.; Huzel N.; Butler M. Erythropoietin Production from CHO Cells Grown by Continuous Culture in a Fluidized-Bed Bioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 77: 192–202; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warnock J and Al-Rubeai, M (2005) Production of Biologics From Animal Cell Cultures In: Nedovıć V and Wıllaert R (ed) Applications of Cell Immobilisation Biotechnology vol 8B. Springer Dordrecht, Berlin, pp 423-438Google Scholar
  39. Xiao C.; Huang Z.; Li W.; Hu X.; Qu W.; Gao L.; Liu G. High density and scale-up cultivation of recombinant CHO cell line and hybridomas with porous microcarrier Cytopore. Cytotechnology 30: 143–147; 1999.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yamaji H.; Fukuda H. Continuous IgG Production by Myeloma Cells Immobilized within Porous Support Particles. J Biosci Bioeng 5: 489–49; 1997.Google Scholar
  41. Zhou F.; Bi J.; Zeng A.; Zhou J. Y. A macrokinetic model for myeloma cell culture based on stoichiometric balance. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 46: 85–95; 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duygu Ayyildiz-Tamis
    • 1
  • Kamuran Avcı
    • 1
  • S. Ismet Deliloglu-Gurhan
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Faculty, Department of BioengineeringEge UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations