Literature DB >> 30499081

Recombinant Antibody Production in CHO and NS0 Cells: Differences and Similarities.

Venkata Gayatri Dhara1, Harnish Mukesh Naik1, Natalia I Majewska1, Michael J Betenbaugh2.   

Abstract

The commercial production of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has revolutionized the treatment of many diseases, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. These biotherapeutics have the potential to generate a global annual revenue of more than US$150 billion. Two cell hosts are predominantly utilized to produce these mAbs: Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells and murine myeloma cells (NS0). By 2017, nearly one-quarter of all approved mAbs in the market were produced using the NS0 host cell line, and around two-thirds were produced in CHO cells. Several different expression platforms are available: CHO-GS (glutamine synthetase), CHO-DHFR (dihydrofolate reductase), NS0, and GS-NS0, which have been characterized with respect to cell line and process development. Even though the major components of the cell culture media are common for both CHO and NS0 cells, specific growth media have been modified based on individual cellular requirements, such as cholesterol for NS0 cells. Additionally, understanding genomic and metabolic differences between the two cell hosts from an 'omics perspective has created a reference for media composition and antibody quality improvements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30499081     DOI: 10.1007/s40259-018-0319-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BioDrugs        ISSN: 1173-8804            Impact factor:   5.807


  10 in total

1.  Elucidating the impact of cottonseed hydrolysates on CHO cell culture performance through transcriptomic analysis.

Authors:  Swetha Kumar; Venkata Gayatri Dhara; Linda D Orzolek; Haiping Hao; Abbie J More; Eduardo Catchon Lau; Michael J Betenbaugh
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  Process- and Product-Related Foulants in Virus Filtration.

Authors:  Solomon Isu; Xianghong Qian; Andrew L Zydney; S Ranil Wickramasinghe
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-04

3.  Comparative systeomics to elucidate physiological differences between CHO and SP2/0 cell lines.

Authors:  Deniz Demirhan; Amit Kumar; Jie Zhu; Pi Camilla Poulsen; Natalia I Majewska; Yinong Sebastian; Raghothama Chaerkady; Wen Yu; Wei Zhu; Li Zhuang; Punit Shah; Kristen Lekstrom; Robert N Cole; Hui Zhang; Michael J Betenbaugh; Michael A Bowen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  Strategies and Considerations for Improving Recombinant Antibody Production and Quality in Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells.

Authors:  Jun-He Zhang; Lin-Lin Shan; Fan Liang; Chen-Yang Du; Jing-Jing Li
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-03-04

Review 5.  Aptasensors versus immunosensors-Which will prevail?

Authors:  Sofia Arshavsky-Graham; Christopher Heuer; Xin Jiang; Ester Segal
Journal:  Eng Life Sci       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 2.678

6.  Degron tagging of BleoR and other antibiotic-resistance genes selects for higher expression of linked transgenes and improved exosome engineering.

Authors:  Shang Jui Tsai; Yiwei Ai; Chenxu Guo; Stephen J Gould
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 5.486

7.  A proteomics approach to decipher a sticky CHO situation.

Authors:  Swetha Kumar; Amit Kumar; Steven Huhn; Lauren DeVine; Robert Cole; Zhimei Du; Michael Betenbaugh
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 4.395

8.  Generation of a host cell line containing a MAR-rich landing pad for site-specific integration and expression of transgenes.

Authors:  Claudia Oliviero; Steffen C Hinz; Jan P Bogen; Henri Kornmann; Björn Hock; Harald Kolmar; Gerrit Hagens
Journal:  Biotechnol Prog       Date:  2022-04-25

9.  Expanded Chinese hamster organ and cell line proteomics profiling reveals tissue-specific functionalities.

Authors:  Kelley Heffner; Deniz Baycin Hizal; Natalia I Majewska; Swetha Kumar; Venkata Gayatri Dhara; Jie Zhu; Michael Bowen; Diane Hatton; George Yerganian; Athena Yerganian; Robert O'Meally; Robert Cole; Michael Betenbaugh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Analytical Similarity Assessment of ABP 959 in Comparison with Eculizumab Reference Product.

Authors:  Katariina M Hutterer; Anna Ip; Scott Kuhns; Shawn Cao; Mats Wikström; Jennifer Liu
Journal:  BioDrugs       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 5.807

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.