Advertisement

Cytotechnology

, Volume 34, Issue 1–2, pp 175–179 | Cite as

Constructive improvement of the ultrasonic separation device ADI 1015

  • O.-W. Merten
Article

Abstract

The use of the ultrasonic separation deviceis a very important step in the direction forimproving animal cell bioreactor cultures. However,the normal construction of the ultrasonic separationdevice ADI 1015 has an inherent disadvantage inpumping the cell suspension continuously through thedevice by using a peristaltic pump. The cells aretaken out of the reactor and are transported to theside inlet located below the separation chamber of thedevice. This cycling leads to cell death and aconsiderable reduction of the viable cell density. Themodification of the configuration of the device (nocirculation of the cell suspension through theretention device; during approximately 9 minutescell-free supernatant is extracted; every 9 minute forabout one minute, the volume which is equivalent tothe interior volume of the chamber and the tubingconnecting the device to the reactor, is flushed backin order to return the retained cells back to thereactor) allows cell densities from 106 to2.7 × 106 c/ml with a viability of at least90% (tested for the shear sensitive insect cell lineHigh Five), whereas the maximal cell densitiesobtained were 0.76 × 106 c/ml for the periodof continuous culture and 105 c/ml at the end ofthe use of the device in the classical mode.

High Five cells improvement perfusion culture ultrasonic retention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gaida Th, Doblhoff O, Strutzenberger K, Katinger H, Burger W, Gröschl M, Handl B and Benes E (1995) Scale-up of ultrasonic resonance field cell separation devices used in animal cell technology. In: EC Beuvery et al. (eds) Animal Cell Technology: Developments towards the 21st Century (pp. 699–703), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  2. Gaida Th, Doblhoff O, Strutzenberger K, Katinger H, Burger W, Gröschl M, Handl B and Benes E (1996) Selective retention of viable cells in ultrasonic resonance field devices. Biotechnol Prog 12: 73–76.Google Scholar
  3. Kretzmer G and Schügerl K (1991) Response of mammalian cells to shear stress. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 34: 613–616.Google Scholar
  4. Trampler F, Sonderhoff SA, Pui PWS, Kilburn DG and Piret JM (1994) Acoustic cell filter for high density perfusion culture of hybridoma cells. Bio/Technology 12: 281–284.Google Scholar
  5. Zhang J, Collins A, Chen M, Knyazev I and Gentz R (1998) Highdensity perfusion culture of insect cells with a BioSep ultrasonic filter. Biotechnol Bioeng 59: 351–359.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • O.-W. Merten
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut PasteurLaboratoire de Technologie CellulaireParis

Personalised recommendations