Skip to main content

The “Push-to-Low” Approach for Optimization of High-Density Perfusion Cultures of Animal Cells

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology ((ABE,volume 101))

Abstract

High product titer is considered a strategic advantage of fed-batch over perfusion cultivationmode. The titer difference has been experimentally demonstrated and reported in the literature. However,the related theoretical aspects and strategies for optimization of perfusion processes with respect to theirfed-batch counterparts have not been thoroughly explored. The present paper introduces a unified frameworkfor comparison of fed-batch and perfusion cultures, and proposes directions for improvement of the latter.The comparison is based on the concept of “equivalent specific perfusion rate”, a variablethat conveniently bridges various cultivation modes. The analysis shows that development of economicallycompetitive perfusion processes for production of stable proteins depends on our ability to dramaticallyreduce the dilution rate while keeping high cell density, i.e., operating at low specific perfusion rates.Under these conditions, titer increases significantly, approaching the range of fed-batch titers. However,as dilution rate is decreased, a limit is reached below which performance declines due to poor growthand viability, specific productivity, or product instability. To overcome these limitations, a strategyreferred to as “push-to-low” optimization has been developed. This approach involves an iterativestepwise decrease of the specific perfusion rate, and is most suitable for production of stable proteinswhere increased residence time does not compromise apparent specific productivity or product quality. Thepush-to-low approach was successfully applied to the production of monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosisfactor (TNF). The experimental results followed closely the theoretical prediction, providing a multifoldincrease in titer. Despite the medium improvement, reduction of the specific growth rate along with increasedapoptosis was observed at low specific perfusion rates. This phenomenon could not be explained with limitationor inhibition by the known nutrients and metabolites. Even further improvement would be possible if thecause of apoptosis were understood.

In general, a strategic target in the optimization of perfusion processes should be the decreaseof the cell-specific perfusion rate to below 0.05 nL/cell/day, resulting in high, batch-like titers.The potential for high titer, combined with high volumetric productivity, stable performance over many months,and superior product/harvest quality, make perfusion processes an attractive alternative to fed-batch production,even in the case of stable proteins.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Abbreviations

CSPR :

Cell specific perfusion rate (nL/cell/day)

D :

Dilution rate (fermentor volumes/day)

OP :

Operating point

OTR :

Oxygen transfer rate (mM/L/day)

OUR :

Oxygen uptake rate (mM/L/day)

QP :

Specific production rate (pg/cell/day)

RT :

Residence time (h)

SGR :

Specific growth rate (1/day)

t :

Time

V :

Fermentor volume (L)

VP :

Volumetric productivity (mg/L/day)

X :

Cell concentration in fermentor (cells/mL)

X H :

Cell concentration in harvest (cells/mL)

References

  1. Konstantinov K, Thrift J, Chuppa S, Matanguihan R, Sajan E, Tsai Y, Michaels J (1997) In: Naveh D (ed) Recent advances in fermentation technology (RAFT-2), San Diego, November 15–18, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen D, Mered M, Simmons R, Dadson A, Figueroa C, Rice C (1992) 9th international biotechnology symposium, Crystal City, Virginia, August 16–21, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  3. Konstantinov K (1996) Biotech Prog 52:271–289

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Konstantinov K, Tsai Y, Moles D, Matanguihan R (1996) Biotech Prog 12:100–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Werner R, Noe W (1998) Cytotechnology 26:81–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kadouri A, Speir R (1997) Cytotechnology 24:89–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Rubeai M, Emery A, Chalder S, Jan D (1992) Cytotechnology, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bierau H, Perani A, Al-Rubeai M, Emery AJ (1998) Biotechnology 62:195–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffiths JJ (1992) Biotechnology 22:21–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Griffiths J, Looby D, Racher A (1992) Cytotechnology 9:3–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Heijnen J, van Scheltina A, Straathof AJ (1992) Biotechnology 22:3–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Runstadler P, Ozturk S, Ray N (eds) (1992) An evaluation of hybridoma cell specific productivity: perfusion immobilized, continuous suspension, and batch suspension cultures. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  13. Werner R, Walz F, Noe W, Konard AJ (1992) Biotechnology 22:51–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansen K, Kjalke M, Rasmussen P, Kongreslev L, Ezban M (1997) Cytotechnology 24:227–234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Teige M, Weidemann R, Kretzmer GJ (1994) Biotechnology 34:101–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Adamson R (1994) Ann Hematol 68:9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rozales C, Chuppa S, Matanguihan R, Michaels J, Taticek R, Thrift J, Konstantinov K, Naveh D (1997) 15th ESACT meeting, Tours, France, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brandt H, Muthing J, Peter J, Lehman J (1994) Cytotechnology 16:89–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Buntemeyer H, Wallerius C, Lehman J (1992) Cytotechnology 9:59–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chaplen F (1998) Cytotechnology 26:173–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee Y, Yap P, Teoh A (1994) Biotech Prog 45:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ronningh O, Schartum M, Winsnes A, Lindberg G (1991) Cytotechnology 7:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The term “push-to-low” was first introduced by our colleague Kathleen Harris. We would like to thank the off-shift crew who supported the long-term perfusion experiments. The contribution of our colleagues from the Medium Production Group is also gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantin Konstantinov .

Editor information

Wei-Shou Hu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Konstantinov, K. et al. (2006). The “Push-to-Low” Approach for Optimization of High-Density Perfusion Cultures of Animal Cells. In: Hu, WS. (eds) Cell Culture Engineering. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, vol 101. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_016

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics