Production Systems

  • Keith J. Gooch
  • Christopher J. Tennant
Part of the Biotechnology Intelligence Unit book series (BIOIU)


This chapter will discuss the relationships between mechanical factors and animal cell culture systems used for production systems in biotechnology and tissue engineering. The term biotechnology will be used in this chapter to describe the use of cultured cells to produce macromolecules of potential commercial interest. These macromolecules can range from relatively simple molecules such as penicillin, a molecule of less than 1 kDa produced by cultured fungus, to more complicated products such as insulin (~6 kDa), to extremely complex structures such as the polio viruses (2,500 kDa). Tissue engineering, a newer and less well-defined term, will be used in this chapter to describe applications for which the desired products are either individual cells (such as blood cells for infusion subsequent to chemotherapy) or tissue-like structures formed by cells on a biological or synthetic scaffold (such as bioartificial skin, cartilage, and blood vessel).


Mechanical Force Spinner Flask Animal Cell Culture Native Cartilage Contractile Phenotype 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Griffiths B. Products from animal cells. In: Butler M, ed. Mammalian Cell Biotechnology: A Practical Approach. Oxford: IRL Press, 1991: 207–35.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papoutsakis ET. Fluid-mechanical damage of animal cells in bioreactors. Trends Biotechnol 1992; 9: 427–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lakhotia S, Papoutsakis E. Agitation induced cell injury in microcarrier cultures. Protective effect of viscosity in agitation dependent: experiments and modeling. Biotechnol Bioeng 1992; 39: 95–107.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bavarian F, Fan I, Chalmers J. Microscopic visualization of insect cell-bubble interactions. I: rising bubbles, air-medium interface, and the foam layer. Biotechnol Prog 1991; 7: 140–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chalmers J, Bavarian F. Microscopic visulaization of insect cell-bubble interactions. II: The bubble film and bubble rupture. Biotechnol Prog 1991; 7: 151–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cherry R, Hulle C. Cell death in the thin films of bursting bubbles. Biotechnol Prog 1992; 8: 11–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramirez O, Mutharasan R. Effect of serum on plasma membrane fluidity of hybridomas: an insight into its shear protective mechanisms. Biotechnol Prog 1992; 8: 40–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papoutsakis ET, Michaels JD. Physical forces in mammalian cell bioreactors. In: Frangos JA, ed. Physical Forces and the Mammalian Cell. San Diego: Academic Press, 1993: 291–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goosen M. Large-scale insect culture. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1992; 3: 99–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ju L, Armiger W. Use of perfluorocarbon emulsions in cell culture. Biotechniques 1992; 12: 258–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Su W, Caram H, Humphrey A. Optimal design of the tubular microporous membrane aerator for shear sensitive cell cultures. Biotechnol Prog 1992; 8: 19–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merchuk JC. Shear effects on suspended cells. Adv Biochem Eng Biotech 1991; 44: 65–95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gooch KJ, Frangos J. Shear sensitivity in animal cell culture. Curr Opin Biotech 1993; 4: 193–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lakhotia S, Bauer K, Papoutsakis E. Damaging agitation intensities increase DNA synthesis rate and alter cell-cycle phase distribution of CHO cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 1992; 40: 978–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crane GM, Ishaug SL, Mikos AG. Bone tissue engineering. Nat Med 1995; 1 (12): 1322–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freed LE, Vunjak-Novakovic G. Tissue engineering of cartilage. In: Bronzind J, ed. The Biomedical Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freed LE, Vunjak-Novakovic G, Langer R. Cultivation of cell-polymer cartilage implants in bioreactors. J Cell Biochem 1993; 51: 257–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freed LE, Vujak-Novakovic G. Cultivation of cell polymer tissue constructs in simulated microgravity. Biotech Bioeng 1995; 46: 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freed LE et al. Joint resurfacing using allograft chondrocytes and synthetic biodegradable polymer scaffolds. J Biomed Mat Res 1994; 28: 891–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vunjak-Novakovic G et al. Effects of mixing on the composition and morphology of tissue engineered cartilage. AICHE J 1996; 42 (3): 850–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lytle BW et al. Long-term (5 to 12 years) serial studies of internal mammary artery and saphenous vein coronary bypass surgery. J Thorac Surg 1985; 89: 248–58.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herring M, Gardner A, Glover J. A single-stage technique for seeding vascular grafts with autogenous endothelium. Surgery 1978; 84: 498–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shindo S, Takagi A, Whittenore AD. Improved patency of collagen-impregnated grafts after autogenous endothelial cell seeding. J Vasc Surg 1987; 6(325–32).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinberg CB, Bell E. A blood vessel model constructed from collagen and cultured vascular cells. Science 1986. 231: 397–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herring MB. Endothelial cell seeding. J Vasc Surg 1991; 13: 731–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Otto MJ, Ballermann BJ. Shear stress-conditioned, endothelial cell seeded vascular grafts: Improved cell adherence in response to in vitro shear stress. Surgery 1995; 117 (3): 334–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campbell JHC, Campbell GR. What controls smooth muscle phenotype? Atherosclerosis 1981; 40: 347–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stadler E, Campbell JH, Campbell GR. Do cultured vascular smooth muscle cells resemble those of the artery wall? If not, why not? J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1989; 14 (6): S1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bjorkerud S. Cultivated human arterial smooth muscle displays heterogeneous pattern of growth and phenotypic variation. Lab Invest 1985; 53: 303–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kanda K, Matsuda T. Mechanical stress-induced orientation and ultra-structural change of smooth muscle cells cultured in three dimensional collagen lattices. Cell Transplantation 1994; 3 (6): 481–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ziegler T, Nerem R. Tissue engineering a blood vessel: regulation of vascular biology by mechanical stresses. J Cell Biochem 1994; 56 (2): 204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koo EWK, Gotlieb AI. Endothelial stimulation of intimal cell proliferation in porcine aortic organ culture. Am J Pathol 1989; 134: 497–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hillsley MV, Frangos JA. Review: Bone tissue engineering: The role of interstitial fluid flow. Biotch Bioeng 1994; 43: 575–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith J. Gooch
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Tennant
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringMITCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.ColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations