Practices of shake-flask culture and advances in monitoring CO2 and O2

Mini-Review
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

About 85 years have passed since the shaking culture was devised. Since then, various monitoring devices have been developed to measure culture parameters. O2 consumed and CO2 produced by the respiration of cells in shaking cultures are of paramount importance due to their presence in both the culture broth and headspace of shake flask. Monitoring in situ conditions during shake-flask culture is useful for analysing the behaviour of O2 and CO2, which interact according to Henry’s law, and is more convenient than conventional sampling that requires interruption of shaking. In situ monitoring devices for shake-flask cultures are classified as direct or the recently developed bypass type. It is important to understand the characteristics of each type along with their unintended effect on shake-flask cultures, in order to improve the existing devices and culture conditions. Technical developments in the bypass monitoring devices are strongly desired in the future. It is also necessary to understand the mechanism underlying conventional shake-flask culture. The existing shaking culture methodology can be expanded into next-generation shake-flask cultures constituting a novel culture environment through a judicious selection of monitoring devices depending on the intended purpose of shake-flask culture. Construction and sharing the databases compatible with the various types of the monitoring devices and measurement instruments adapted for shaking culture can provide a valuable resource for broadening the application of cells with shake-flask culture.

Keywords

Bioprocess monitoring Carbon dioxide Monitoring device Oxygen Shake-flask culture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The manuscript has been edited by native English-speaking professional editors from Editage, a division of Cactus Communications.

Authors’ information

Masato Takahashi (postdoctoral researcher; research fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan

Hideki Aoyagi (professor and principal investigator). Division of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors 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.

References

  1. Ahn WS, Jeon JJ, Jeong YR, Lee SJ, Yoon SK (2008) Effect of culture temperature on erythropoietin production and glycosylation in a perfusion culture of recombinant CHO cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 101:1234–1244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoabediny G, Büchs J (2010) Determination of CO2 sensitivity of micro-organisms in shaken bioreactors. I. Novel method based on the resistance of sterile closure. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 57:157–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoabediny G, Abbas MP, Büchs J (2010) Determination of CO2 sensitivity of micro-organisms in shaken bioreactors. II. Novel online monitoring method. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 57:167–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderlei T, Büchs J (2001) Device for sterile online measurement of the oxygen transfer rate in shaking flasks. Biochem Eng J 7:157–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderlei T, Zang W, Papaspyrou M, Büchs J (2004) Online respiration activity measurement (OTR, CTR, RQ) in shake flasks. Biochem Eng J 17:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beutel S, Henkel S (2011) In situ sensor techniques in modern bioprocess monitoring. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1493–1505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blombach B, Takors R (2015) CO2—intrinsic product, essential substrate, and regulatory trigger of microbial and mammalian production processes. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3:108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Büchs J (2001) Introduction to advantages and problems of shaken cultures. Biochem Eng J 7:91–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Büchs J, Maier U, Lotter S, Peter CP (2007) Calculating liquid distribution in shake flasks on rotary shakers at waterlike viscosities. Biochem Eng J 34:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkholder PR, Sinnott EW (1945) Morphogenesis of fungus colonies in submerged shaken cultures. Am J Bot 32:424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corman J, Tsuchiya HM, Koepsell HJ, Benedict RG, Kelley SE, Feger VH, Dworschack RG, Jackson RW (1957) Oxygen absorption rates in laboratory and pilot plant equipment. Appl Microbiol 5:313–318PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Danielson PB, Büchs J, Stöckmann C, Fogleman JC (2004) Maximizing cell densities in miniprep-scale cultures with H15 medium and improved oxygen transfer. Biochem Eng J 17:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon NM, Kell DB (1989) The inhibition by CO2 of the growth and metabolism of microorganisms. J Appl Bacteriol 67:109–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eibes GM, Lú-Chau TA, Ruiz-Dueñas FJ, Feijoo G, Martínez MJ, Martínez AT, Lema JM (2009) Effect of culture temperature on the heterologous expression of Pleurotus eryngii versatile peroxidase in Aspergillus hosts. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 32:129–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Eibl R, Kaiser S, Lombriser R, Eibl D (2010) Disposable bioreactors: the current state-of-the-art and recommended applications in biotechnology. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86:41–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Falch EA, Heden CG (1963) Disposable shaker flasks. Biotechnol Bioeng 5:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farmer IS, Jones CW (1976) The effect of temperature on the molar growth yield and maintenance requirement of Escherichia coli W during aerobic growth in continuous culture. FEBS Lett 67:359–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Finn RK (1954) Agitation-aeration in the laboratory and in industry. Bacteriol Rev 18:254–274PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Flitsch D, Ladner T, Lukacs M, Büchs J (2016) Easy to use and reliable technique for online dissolved oxygen tension measurement in shake flasks using infrared fluorescent oxygen-sensitive nanoparticles. Microb Cell Factories 15:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freedman D (1970) Chapter VI the shaker in bioengineering. In: Norris JR, Ribbons DW (eds) Methods in microbiology. Academic, pp 175–185Google Scholar
  21. Fujita M, Iwahori K, Tatsuta S, Yamakawa K (1994) Analysis of pellet formation of Aspergillus niger based on shear stress. J Ferment Bioeng 78:368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaden EL (1962) Improved shaken flask performance. Biotechnol Bioeng 4:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia-Ochoa F, Gomez E (2009) Bioreactor scale-up and oxygen transfer rate in microbial processes: an overview. Biotechnol Adv 27:153–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ge X, Rao G (2012) Real-time monitoring of shake flask fermentation and off gas using triple disposable noninvasive optical sensors. Biotechnol Prog 28:872–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerhardt P, Gee LL (1946) Brucella suis in aerated broth culture I. Preliminary studies on growth assays, inoculum, and growth characteristics in an improved medium. J Bacteriol 52:261–269PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta A, Rao G (2003) A study of oxygen transfer in shake flasks using a non-invasive oxygen sensor. Biotechnol Bioeng 84:351–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansen S, Kensy F, Käser A, Büchs J (2011) Potential errors in conventional DOT measurement techniques in shake flasks and verification using a rotating flexitube optical sensor. BMC Biotechnol 11:49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Henzler HJ, Schedel M (1991) Suitability of the shaking flask for oxygen supply to microbiological cultures. Bioprocess Eng 7:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirata M, Ikeda M, Fukuda F, Abe M, Sawada H, Hashimoto S (2017) Effect of temperature on the production rates of methyl halides in cultures of marine proteobacteria. Mar Chem 196:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ikeno Y, Ozaki A (1967) Factors affecting oxygen transfer into shaken flask. Agric Biol Chem 32:912–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jensen AL, Schultz JS (1966) Apparatus for monitoring the oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide production of fermentations. Biotechnol Bioeng 8:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones RP, Greenfield PF (1982) Effect of carbon dioxide on yeast growth and fermentation. Enzym Microb Technol 4:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Junne S, Solymosi T, Oosterhuis N, Neubauer P (2013) Cultivation of cells and microorganisms in wave-mixed disposable bag bioreactors at different scales. Chem Ing Tech 85:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kantorowicz O (1951) Shaking apparatus for the aeration of bacterial cultures. J Gen Microbiol 5:276–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanzaki H, Imura D, Sashida R, Kobayashi A, Kawazu K (1999) Effective production of dehydro cyclic dipeptide albonours in exhibiting pronuclear fusion inhibitory activity I. Taxonomy and fermentation. J Antibiot 52:1017–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kato I (1998) Problems of shaking culture from the viewpoint of aeration effect and development of a novel shake flask [in Japanese]. University of Tsukuba, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  37. Kato I, Tanaka H (1998a) Development of a novel box-shaped shake flask with efficient gas exchange capacity. J Ferment Bioeng 85:404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kato I, Tanaka H (1998b) Influence of CO2 ventilation on microbial cultivation in shake-flasks. Biotechnol Tech 12:325–328Google Scholar
  39. Kato Y, Tada Y, Watanabe S, Nagatsu Y, Iwata S, Lee YS, Koh ST (2005) Mixing condition and solid-liquid and gas-liquid mass transfer in a shaking vessel with figure-eight motion [in Japanese]. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 31:394–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klöckner W, Büchs J (2012) Advances in shaking technologies. Trends Biotechnol 30:307–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kluyver AJ, Perquin LHC (1932) Methodology in the research of mold metabolism [in German]. Biochem Z 266:68–81Google Scholar
  42. Kunerth W (1922) Solubility of CO2 and N2O in certain solvents. Phys Rev 19:512–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kybal J, Sikyta B (1985) A device for cultivation of plant and animal cells. Biotechnol Lett 7:467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lattermann C, Büchs J (2015) Microscale and miniscale fermentation and screening. Curr Opin Biotechnol 35:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Li C, Xia JY, Chu J, Wang YH, Zhuang YP, Zhang SL (2013) CFD analysis of the turbulent flow in baffled shake flasks. Biochem Eng J 70:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu Y, Wang ZJ, Zhang JW, Xia JY, Chu J, Zhang SL, Zhuang YP (2016) Quantitative evaluation of the shear threshold on Carthamus tinctorius L. cell growth with computational fluid dynamics in shaken flask bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 113:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maier U, Büchs J (2001) Characterisation of the gas-liquid mass transfer in shaking bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 7:99–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Marose S, Lindemann C, Ulber R, Scheper T (1999) Optical sensor systems for bioprocess monitoring. Trends Biotechnol 17:30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mcdaniel LE, Bailey EG, Zimmerli A (1965) Effect of oxygen-supply rates on growth of Escherichia coli I. Studies in unbaffled and baffled shake flasks. Appl Microbiol 13:109–114PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Mrotzek C, Anderlei T, Henzler H, Büchs J (2001) Mass transfer resistance of sterile plugs in shaking bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 7:107–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Nickerson CA, Ott CM, Wilson JW, Ramamurthy R, Pierson DL (2004) Microbial responses to microgravity and other low-shear environments. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68:345–361CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Osorio JG, Muzzio FJ (2015) Evaluation of resonant acoustic mixing performance. Powder Technol 278:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peter CP, Suzuki Y, Büchs J (2006) Volumetric power consumption in baffled shake flasks. Chem Eng Sci 61:3771–3779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Philip P, Meier K, Kern D, Goldmanns J, Stockmeier F, Bähr C, Büchs J (2017) Systematic evaluation of characteristics of the membrane-based fed-batch shake flask. Microb Cell Factories 16:122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Postigo MA, Katz M (1987) Solubility and thermodynamics of carbon dioxide in aqueous ethanol solutions. J Solut Chem 16:1015–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reynoso-Cereceda GI, Garcia-Cabrera RI, Valdez-Cruz NA, Trujillo-Roldán MA (2016) Shaken flasks by resonant acoustic mixing versus orbital mixing: mass transfer coefficient k La characterization and Escherichia coli cultures comparison. Biochem Eng J 105:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Running JA, Bansal K (2016) Oxygen transfer rates in shaken culture vessels from Fernbach flasks to microtiter plates. Biotechnol Bioeng 113:1729–1735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruottinen M, Bollok M, Kögler M, Neubauer A, Krause M, Hämäläinen ER, Myllyharju J, Vasala A, Neubauer P (2008) Improved production of human type II procollagen in the yeast Pichia pastoris in shake flasks by a wireless-controlled fed-batch system. BMC Biotechnol 8:33CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheidle M, Klinger J, Büchs J (2007) Combination of on-line pH and oxygen transfer rate measurement in shake flasks by fiber optical technique and respiration activity monitoring system (RAMOS). Sensors 7:3472–3480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider K, Schütz V, John GT, Heinzle E (2010) Optical device for parallel online measurement of dissolved oxygen and pH in shake flask cultures. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 33:541–547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Schultz JS (1964) Cotton closure as an aeration barrier in shaken flask fermentations. Appl Microbiol 12:305–310PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Shiota H, Sakaguchi KI (1950) Studies on the production of mold protease in the submerged culture part I [in Japanese]. Nippon Nogeikagaku Kaishi 23:426–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Singh V (1999) Disposable bioreactor for cell culture using wave-induced agitation. Cytotechnology 30:149–158CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Sumino Y, Sonoi K, Doi M (1993) Scale-up of purine nucleoside fermentation from a shaking flask to a stirred-tank fermentor. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 38:581–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Suresh S, Srivastava VC, Mishra IM (2009a) Critical analysis of engineering aspects of shaken flask bioreactors. Crit Rev Biotechnol 29:255–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Suresh S, Srivastava VC, Mishra IM (2009b) Techniques for oxygen transfer measurement in bioreactors: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 84:1091–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Takahashi M, Aoyagi H (2018) Effect of intermittent opening of breathable culture plugs and aeration of headspace on the structure of microbial communities in shake-flask culture. J Biosci Bioeng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2018.01.009
  68. Takahashi M, Sawada Y, Aoyagi H (2017) Development of a circulation direct sampling and monitoring system for O2 and CO2 concentrations in the gas-liquid phases of shake-flask systems during microbial cell culture. AMB Express 7:163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Tanaka H, Ishikawa H, Nobayashi H, Takagi Y (1991) A new scale-up method based on the effect of ventilation on aerated fermentation systems. J Ferment Bioeng 72:204–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tolosa L, Kostov Y, Harms P, Rao G (2002) Noninvasive measurement of dissolved oxygen in shake flasks. Biotechnol Bioeng 80:594–597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Truesdale GA, Downing AL (1954) Solubility of oxygen in water. Nature 173:1236–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tunac JB (1989) High-aeration capacity shake-flask system. J Ferment Bioeng 68:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ude C, Hentrop T, Lindner P, Lücking TH, Scheper T, Beutel S (2015) New perspectives in shake flask pH control using a 3D-printed control unit based on pH online measurement. Sensors Actuators B Chem 221:1035–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ulber R, Frerichs JG, Beutel S (2003) Optical sensor systems for bioprocess monitoring. Anal Bioanal Chem 376:342–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. van Rensburg E, du Preez JC (2007) Effect of pH, temperature and nutrient limitations on growth and leukotoxin production by Mannheimia haemolytica in batch and continuous culture. J Appl Microbiol 102:1273–1282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Vansuijdam JC, Kossen NWF, Joha AC (1978) Model for oxygen transfer in a shake flask. Biotechnol Bioeng 20:1695–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vasala A, Panula J, Bollók M, Illmann L, Hälsig C, Neubauer P (2006) A new wireless system for decentralised measurement of physiological parameters from shake flasks. Microb Cell Factories 5:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vergara M, Becerra S, Berrios J, Osses N, Reyes J, Rodríguez-Moyá M, Gonzalez R, Altamirano C (2014) Differential effect of culture temperature and specific growth rate on CHO cell behavior in chemostat culture. PLoS One 9:e93865CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Vojinović V, Cabral JMS, Fonseca LP (2006) Real-time bioprocess monitoring Part I: In situ sensors. Sensors Actuators B Chem 114:1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Watanabe I, Okada S (1967) Effects of temperature on growth rate of cultured mammalian cells (L5178Y). J Cell Biol 32:309–323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Wittmann C, Kim HM, John G, Heinzle E (2003) Characterization and application of an optical sensor for quantification of dissolved O2 in shake-flasks. Biotechnol Lett 25:377–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Yang T, Huang Y, Han Z, Liu H, Zhang R, Xu Y (2013) Novel disposable flexible bioreactor for Escherichia coli culture in orbital shaking incubator. J Biosci Bioeng 116:452–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Yeh SY, Peterson RE (1964) Solubility of carbon dioxide, krypton, and xenon in aqueous solution. J Pharm Sci 53:822–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Yoon SK, Kim SH, Lee GM (2003) Effect of low culture temperature on specific productivity and transcription level of anti-4-1BB antibody in recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Prog 19:1383–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhang H, Williams-Dalson W, Keshavarz-Moore E, Shamlou PA (2005) Computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD) analysis of mixing and gas-liquid mass transfer in shake flasks. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 41:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations