| Literature DB >> 35318833 |
Christine Hilde Weiss1,2, Janine Stephanie Caspari1, Corinna Merkel1, Aline Zimmer1.
Abstract
Cell culture medium (CCM) formulations are chemically defined to reduce lot-to-lot variability and complexity of the medium while still providing all essential nutrients supporting cell growth and productivity of various cell lines. However, raw material impurities may still introduce variations and inconsistencies to final CCM formulations. In one of our previous studies (Weiss et al. Biotechnol Prog. 2021;37(4):e3148), we have demonstrated the impact of iron raw material impurity on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell performance and critical quality attributes (CQAs) of recombinant proteins within the Cellvento® 4CHO CCM platform by identifying manganese impurity as the main root cause for improved cell performance and altered glycosylation profiles. This study sought to investigate the impact of iron raw material impurities within another medium platform, namely EX-CELL® Advanced CHO Fed-Batch-Medium. As opposed to previously published results, in this platform, copper instead of manganese impurity present within the used ferric ammonium citrate (FAC) iron source was responsible for an improved cell performance of a CHOZN® cell line and a slight difference in CQAs of the produced recombinant protein. The use of tightly controlled raw material specifications or the use of low impurity iron sources is therefore crucial to minimize the impact of impurities on cell performance in any CCM platform and thereby guarantee consistent and reproducible cell culture processes.Entities:
Keywords: Cell culture medium; copper; iron; low impurity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35318833 PMCID: PMC9539468 DOI: 10.1002/btpr.3251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Prog ISSN: 1520-6033
FIGURE 1Effect of iron sources FACA, FACB and FACB supplemented with either copper, molybdate, tin or a combination of them on cell performance and CQAs of fusion protein. CHOZN® cells were cultivated in medium supplemented with either FACA or FACB iron source. Additionally, four further conditions were prepared, where either copper, molybdate, tin or all three elements were added to FACB to achieve the exact same respective concentrations as present in FACA. (a) VCD in x106 cells/ml. (b) Viability in %. (c) Fusion protein concentration in mg/L. (d) Glucose concentration in g/L. (e) Lactate concentration in g/L. (f) Ammonium concentration in mmol/L. (g) HMW, main peak and LMW level of fusion protein in %. (h) N‐glycosylation forms (terminal sialylated, terminal galactosylated, terminal GlcNAc and terminal mannosylated) of fusion protein in %. Data are mean ± SD of either four (a–f) or two (g,h) replicates
Impurity profile of iron sources FACA, FACB and FACSynt
| μg/g | Fe | Mg | Al | K | Ca | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Mo | Sn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FACA | 167,000 | 48 | 34 | <5.0 | 100 | 32 | 60 | 7.5 | 56 | 20 | 50 | 60 | <1.0 | <5.0 | 21 | 4.5 |
| FACB | 180,000 | 150 | 110 | 5.3 | 200 | 120 | 140 | 8.5 | 38 | 21 | 40 | 4 | 190 | 10 | 1.2 | 0.75 |
| FACSynt | 187,000 | <1.0 | <2.0 | 5.3 | 26.0 | <1.0 | <0.1 | 1.8 | <0.2 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.1 | 2.0 | <0.5 | <0.5 | <0.5 |
Notes: Only elements showing values above 4 μg/g raw material for at least one iron source are presented, whereby the impurity characterization was done by semiquantitative ICP‐MS if not stated otherwise. Fe, iron; Mg, magnesium; Al, aluminum; K, potassium; Ca, calcium; Ti, titanium; V, vanadium; Cr, chromium; Mn, manganese; Co, cobalt; Ni, nickel; Cu, copper; Zn, zinc; Ga, gallium; Mo, molybdate; Sn, tin
Quantitative values gained with HR‐ICP‐MS, whereby the obtained calibration curves yielded a correlation coefficient of at least >0.995
FIGURE 2Effect of low impurity iron source FACSynt and FACSynt supplemented with copper on cell performance and CQAs of fusion protein compared to FACB supplemented with copper. CHOZN® cells were cultivated in medium supplemented with either FACB + Cu2+, FACSynt or FACSynt + Cu2+. (a) VCD in x106 cells/ml. (b) Viability in %. (c) Fusion protein concentration in mg/L. (d) Glucose concentration in g/L. (e) Lactate concentration in g/L. (f) Ammonium concentration in mmol/L. (g) HMW, main peak and LMW level of fusion protein in %. (h) N‐glycosylation forms (terminal sialylated, terminal galactosylated, terminal GlcNAc and terminal mannosylated) of fusion protein in %. Data are mean ± SD of either three (a–f) or two (g,h) replicates