Early integration of Design of Experiment (DOE) and multivariate statistics identifies feeding regimens suitable for CHO cell line development and screening

  • Alessandro Mora
  • Bernard Nabiswa
  • Yuanyuan Duan
  • Sheng Zhang
  • Gerald Carson
  • Seongkyu YoonEmail author
Original Article


In Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell lines, the establishment of the ideal fed-batch regimen promotes metabolic conditions advantageous for the bioproduction of therapeutic molecules. A tailored, cell line-specific feeding scheme is typically defined during process development (PD) activities, through the incorporation of Design of Experiment (DOE) and late stage cell culture approaches. The feeding during early stage cell line development (CLD) was a simplified “one-fits-all” design, inherited from PD lab, that didn’t account for CLD needs of throughput and streamlined workflow. The “one-fits-all” efficiency was not routinely verified when novel technologies were incorporated in CLD and sub-optimal feeding carried the risk of not selecting the most desirable cell lines amenable to late stage PD. In our work we developed the DOE-feed method; a streamlined, three-stages framework for identifying efficient feeding schemes as the CLD technologies evolved. We combined early stage cell culture input data with late-stage techniques, such as statistical modelling, principal component analysis (PCA), DOE and Prediction Profiler. Novel in our DOE-feed work, we deliberately anticipated the application of statistics and approached the method development as an early-stage, continuously updated process, by building iterative datasets and statistically interpreting their responses. We capitalized on the statistical models defined by the DOE-feed methodology to study the influence of feeds on daily productivity and growth and to extrapolate feeding-schemes that improved the cell line screening. The DOE-feed became a methodology suited for CLD needs at AbbVie, and optimized the early stage screening, reduced the operational hands-on time and improved the overall workstream efficiency.


Chinese hamster ovary Cell Line Development Feed medium Design of Experiment Multivariate Data Analysis 


Author contributions

The authors participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the publication; all authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. AM, BN, YY, SZ, and GC have or had a financial interest in AbbVie. BN, YY and GC are AbbVie employees. AM and SZ are former employees of AbbVie. SY serves as a PhD advisor to AM.


The design, study conduct, and financial support for the study were provided by AbbVie.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10616_2019_350_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (122 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 122 kb)


  1. Abu-Absi SF, Yang L, Thompson P, Jiang C, Kandula S, Schilling B, Shukla AA (2010) Defining process design space for monoclonal antibody cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 106:894–905. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves CS, Gilbert A, Dalvi S, Germain BS, Xie W, Estes S, Kshirsagar R, Ryll T (2015) Integration of cell line and process development to overcome the challenge of a difficult to express protein. Biotechnol Prog 31:1201–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben Yahia B, Malphettes L, Heinzle E (2015) Macroscopic modeling of mammalian cell growth and metabolism. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:7009–7024. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry B, Moretto J, Matthews T, Smelko JWK, Berry B, Moretto J, Matthews T, Smelko J, Wiltberger K, Berry B, Moretto J, Matthews T, Smelko JWK (2014) Cross-scale predictive modeling of CHO cell culture growth and metabolites using Raman spectroscopy and multivariate analysis. Biotechnol Prog. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brühlmann D, Jordan M, Hemberger J, Sauer M, Stettler M, Broly H (2015) Tailoring recombinant protein quality by rational media design. Biotechnol Prog 31:615–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brühlmann D, Sokolov M, Butté A, Sauer M, Hemberger J, Souquet J, Broly H, Jordan M (2017) Parallel experimental design and multivariate analysis provides efficient screening of cell culture media supplements to improve biosimilar product quality. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:1448–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler M, Meneses-Acosta A (2012) Recent advances in technology supporting biopharmaceutical production from mammalian cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 96:885–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charaniya S, Le H, Rangwala H, Mills K, Johnson K, Karypis G, Hu W-S (2010) Mining manufacturing data for discovery of high productivity process characteristics. J Biotechnol 147:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chusainow J, Yang YS, Yeo JHM, Ton PC, Asvadi P, Wong NSC, Yap MGS (2009) A study of monoclonal antibody-producing CHO cell lines: what makes a stable high producer? Biotechnol Bioeng 102:1182–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies SL, O’Callaghan PM, Mcleod J, Pybus LP, Sung YH, Rance J, Wilkinson SJ, Racher AJ, Young RJ, James DC (2011) Impact of gene vector design on the control of recombinant monoclonal antibody production by Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Prog 27:1689–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietmair S, Hodson MP, Quek LE, Timmins NE, Chrysanthopoulos P, Jacob SS, Gray P, Nielsen LK (2012) Metabolite profiling of CHO cells with different growth characteristics. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:1404–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutton RL, Scharer J, Moo-Young M (2006) Cell cycle phase dependent productivity of a recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cell line. Cytotechnology 52:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estes S, Melville M (2014) Mammalian cell line developments in speed and efficiency. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 123:127–141Google Scholar
  14. Galleguillos SN, Ruckerbauer D, Gerstl MP, Borth N, Hanscho M, Zanghellini J (2017) What can mathematical modelling say about CHO metabolism and protein glycosylation? Comput Struct Biotechnol J 15:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gauthier JH, Pohl PI (2011) A general framework for modeling growth and division of mammalian cells. BMC Syst Biol 5:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiller GW, Ovalle AM, Gagnon MP, Curran ML, Wang W (2017) Cell-controlled hybrid perfusion fed-batch CHO cell process provides significant productivity improvement over conventional fed-batch cultures. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:1438–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ho SCL, Yang Y (2014) Identifying and engineering promoters for high level and sustainable therapeutic recombinant protein production in cultured mammalian cells. Biotechnol Lett 36:1569–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang Y-M, Hu W, Rustandi E, Chang K, Yusuf-Makagiansar H, Ryll T (2010) Maximizing productivity of CHO cell-based fed-batch culture using chemically defined media conditions and typical manufacturing equipment. Biotechnol Prog 26:1400–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kang S, Ren D, Xiao G, Daris K, Buck L, Enyenihi AA, Zubarev R, Bondarenko PV, Deshpande R (2014) Cell line profiling to improve monoclonal antibody production. Biotechnol Bioeng 111:748–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khattak SF, Xing Z, Kenty B, Koyrakh I, Li ZJ (2010) Feed development for fed-batch CHO production process by semisteady state analysis. Biotechnol Prog 26:797–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim JY, Kim YG, Lee GM (2012) CHO cells in biotechnology for production of recombinant proteins: current state and further potential. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93:917–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar N, Gammell P, Clynes M (2007) Proliferation control strategies to improve productivity and survival during CHO based production culture: a summary of recent methods employed and the effects of proliferation control in product secreting CHO cell lines. Cytotechnology 53:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyriakopoulos S, Kontoravdi C (2014) A framework for the systematic design of fed-batch strategies in mammalian cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 111:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindgren K, Salmén A, Lundgren M, Bylund L, Ebler A, Fäldt E, Sörvik L, Fenge C, Skoging-Nyberg U (2009) Automation of cell line development. Cytotechnology 59:1–10. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Lloyd DR, Leelavatcharamas V, Emery AN, Al-Rubeai M (1999) The role of the cell cycle in determining gene expression and productivity in CHO cells. Cytotechnology 30:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu F, Toh PC, Burnett I, Li F, Hudson T, Amanullah A, Li J (2013) Automated dynamic fed-batch process and media optimization for high productivity cell culture process development. Biotechnol Bioeng 110:191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mcleod J, O’Callaghan PM, Pybus LP, Wilkinson SJ, Root T, Racher AJ, James DC (2011) An empirical modeling platform to evaluate the relative control discrete CHO cell synthetic processes exert over recombinant monoclonal antibody production process titer. Biotechnol Bioeng 108:2193–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mora A, Zhang SS, Carson G, Nabiswa B, Hossler P, Yoon S (2017) Sustaining an efficient and effective CHO cell line development platform by incorporation of 24-deep well plate screening and multivariate analysis. Biotechnol Prog. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nagashima H, Watari A, Shinoda Y, Okamoto H, Takuma S (2013) Application of a Quality by Design approach to the cell culture process of monoclonal antibody production, resulting in the establishment of a Design space. J Pharm Sci 102:4274–4283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nolan RP, Lee K (2012) Dynamic model for CHO cell engineering. J Biotechnol 158:24–33. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Callaghan PM, McLeod J, Pybus LP, Lovelady CS, Wilkinson SJ, Racher AJ, Porter A, James DC (2010) Cell line-specific control of recombinant monoclonal antibody production by CHO cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 106:938–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter AJ, Racher AJ, Preziosi R, Dickson AJ (2010) Strategies for selecting recombinant CHO cell lines for cGMP manufacturing: improving the efficiency of cell line generation. Biotechnol Prog 26:1455–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Povey JF, O’Malley CJ, Root T, Martin EB, Montague GA, Feary M, Trim C, Lang DA, Alldread R, Racher AJ, Smales CM (2014) Rapid high-throughput characterisation, classification and selection of recombinant mammalian cell line phenotypes using intact cell MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry fingerprinting and PLS-DA modelling. J Biotechnol 184:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rouiller Y, Solacroup T, Deparis V, Barbafieri M, Gleixner R, Broly H, Eon-Duval A (2012) Application of quality by design to the characterization of the cell culture process of an Fc-Fusion protein. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 81:426–437. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rouiller Y, Périlleux A, Collet N, Jordan M, Stettler M, Broly H (2013) A high-throughput media design approach for high performance mammalian fed-batch cultures. MAbs 5:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saito H, Posas F (2012) Response to hyperosmotic stress. Genetics 192:289–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scarcelli JJ, Shang TQ, Iskra T, Allen MJ, Zhang L (2017) Strategic deployment of CHO expression platforms to deliver Pfizer’s Monoclonal Antibody Portfolio. Biotechnol Prog. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sellick CA, Croxford AS, Maqsood AR, Stephens G, Westerhoff HV, Goodacre R, Dickson AJ (2011) Metabolite profiling of recombinant CHO cells: designing tailored feeding regimes that enhance recombinant antibody production. Biotechnol Bioeng 108:3025–3031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seth G, Charaniya S, Wlaschin KF, Hu WS (2007) In pursuit of a super producer-alternative paths to high producing recombinant mammalian cells. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shirsat N, Mohd A, Whelan J, English NJ, Glennon B, Al-Rubeai M (2015) Revisiting Verhulst and Monod models: analysis of batch and fed-batch cultures. Cytotechnology 67:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Templeton N, Dean J, Reddy P, Young JD (2013) Peak antibody production is associated with increased oxidative metabolism in an industrially relevant fed-batch CHO cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 110:2013–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsang VL, Wang AX, Yusuf-Makagiansar H, Ryll T (2013) Development of a scale down cell culture model using multivariate analysis as a qualification tool. Biotechnol Prog 30:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang WC, Minkler DF, Kshirsagar R, Ryll T, Huang YM (2016) Concentrated fed-batch cell culture increases manufacturing capacity without additional volumetric capacity. J Biotechnol 217:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ye J, Alvin K, Latif H, Hsu A, Parikh V, Whitmer T, Tellers M, de la Cruz Edmonds MC, Ly J, Salmon P, Markusen JF (2010) Rapid protein production using CHO stable transfection pools. Biotechnol Prog 26:1431–1437. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Yu M, Hu Z, Pacis E, Vijayasankaran N, Shen A, Li F (2011) Understanding the intracellular effect of enhanced nutrient feeding toward high titer antibody production process. Biotechnol Bioeng 108:1078–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang H, Wang H, Liu M, Zhang T, Zhang J, Wang X, Xiang W (2013) Rational development of a serum-free medium and fed-batch process for a GS-CHO cell line expressing recombinant antibody. Cytotechnology 65:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang A, Tsang VL, Moore B, Shen V, Huang Y-M, Kshirsagar R, Ryll T (2015) Advanced process monitoring and feedback control to enhance cell culture process production and robustness. Biotechnol Bioeng 112:2495–2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Mora
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bernard Nabiswa
    • 1
  • Yuanyuan Duan
    • 1
  • Sheng Zhang
    • 1
  • Gerald Carson
    • 1
  • Seongkyu Yoon
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Process Sciences DepartmentAbbVie Bioresearch CenterWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Francis College of EngineeringUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA

Personalised recommendations