Next Article in Journal
Matrix Metalloproteases from Adipose Tissue-Derived Stromal Cells Are Spatiotemporally Regulated by Hydrogel Mechanics in a 3D Microenvironment
Previous Article in Journal
CT-Derived 3D Printing for Coronary Artery Cannulation Simulator Design Manufacturing
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improved Time Resolved KPI and Strain Characterization of Multiple Hosts in Shake Flasks Using Advanced Online Analytics and Data Science

by
Rüdiger W. Maschke
1,*,†,
Barbara Pretzner
2,3,*,†,
Gernot T. John
4,
Christoph Herwig
2,3,5 and
Dieter Eibl
1
1
Institute of Chemistry and Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences and Facility Management, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Grüentalstrasse 14, 8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland
2
Körber Pharma Austria GmbH, Mariahilfer Straße 88A/1/9, 1070 Vienna, Austria
3
Research Area Biochemical Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060 Vienna, Austria
4
PreSens Precision Sensing GmbH, Am BioPark 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
5
Competence Center CHASE GmbH, Altenbergerstraße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Bioengineering 2022, 9(8), 339; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9080339
Submission received: 20 May 2022 / Revised: 11 July 2022 / Accepted: 22 July 2022 / Published: 25 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Biosignal Processing)

Abstract

:
Shake flasks remain one of the most widely used cultivation systems in biotechnology, especially for process development (cell line and parameter screening). This can be justified by their ease of use as well as their low investment and running costs. A disadvantage, however, is that cultivations in shake flasks are black box processes with reduced possibilities for recording online data, resulting in a lack of control and time-consuming, manual data analysis. Although different measurement methods have been developed for shake flasks, they lack comparability, especially when changing production organisms. In this study, the use of online backscattered light, dissolved oxygen, and pH data for characterization of animal, plant, and microbial cell culture processes in shake flasks are evaluated and compared. The application of these different online measurement techniques allows key performance indicators (KPIs) to be determined based on online data. This paper evaluates a novel data science workflow to automatically determine KPIs using online data from early development stages without human bias. This enables standardized and cost-effective process-oriented cell line characterization of shake flask cultivations to be performed in accordance with the process analytical technology (PAT) initiative. The comparison showed very good agreement between KPIs determined using offline data, manual techniques, and automatic calculations based on multiple signals of varying strengths with respect to the selected measurement signal.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The creation of a biopharmaceutical product from the very first development steps to market maturity costs several millions, if not billions, of euros [1,2]. To minimize the risk to patients and subsequent product failure, it is essential to thoroughly understand the product as well as the production process and its impact on product quality. For this reason, regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) require proof that the product and the process have been sufficiently investigated by the manufacturers. In the last two decades, the concept of quality by design (QbD), which has also been included in the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines, has proven to be helpful and has become accepted globally [3,4,5,6]. According to ICH, the QbD approach includes the definition of a quality target product profile (QTPP), from which critical quality attributes (CQAs) are derived [7]. Based on prior knowledge and risk assessments, potentially critical process parameters (PCPP) are identified, whose effects on the CQAs are studied in more detail using statistical analyses, such as one factor at a time (OFAT) or design of experiments (DoE) methods [8,9,10]. Then, based on the results of these statistical analyses, a control strategy can be set for the process using, for example, design spaces or proven acceptable ranges (PAR) [11,12]. More and more manufacturers are applying aspects of QbD into their process development. However, this occurs relatively late in the engineering phase and focuses more on the downstream processing (DSP) [13,14]. The early-stage development of upstream processing (USP) is more often based on experience or textbook knowledge instead of sound knowledge management and QbD [15]. USP in particular, with all its possible parameters, such as strain/cell line, production medium, and cultivation conditions, greatly influences the quality of the product [16,17]. It is, therefore, possible to determine PCPPs associated with the cell–medium complex in initial small-scale cultivations [18]. Process-oriented strain/cell line and media characterization at this scale can be used to compare different approaches and subsequently develop a scale-up process based on QbD. The most important comparison parameters can be defined as key performance indicators (KPIs). Often used KPIs are the maximum specific growth rate, µmax, the specific oxygen uptake rate, qO2, and yields (biomass related to substrate YX/S or product related to biomass YP/X) for a process-oriented strain/media characterization.
Strain/cell line and medium characterization are still most frequently performed in shake flasks, justified by their low costs, ease of use, and ability to be run in parallel [19,20,21]. This removes the complex preparation requirements of traditional bioreactors as well as the high costs of using stirred single-use systems with control units [22]. Despite these evident advantages, automated mini-bioreactors [23,24] and well plates [25,26,27] are more often used than shake flasks for this purpose because of one major weakness of this cultivation system: the lack of standardized online measurement and control, making the application of QbD in early-stage development more difficult for shake flasks. This deficiency has two significant consequences.
Firstly, it is not possible to adapt cultivation process parameters to changing conditions within the shake flask. For example, the pH in mammalian cell cultivations can be kept within a physiologically acceptable range for many applications via a carbonate buffer system and the creation of a CO2 atmosphere in the incubator. An elevated pCO2 concentration can result in reduced cultivation success due, for example, to the absence or delayed occurrence of the lactate shift [28]. Moreover, for fast-growing cultures such as E. coli with elevated substrate (e.g., glucose) concentrations, overflow metabolism can be detected [29], leading to increased and inhibiting levels of acetate [30,31] which may exceed the buffer capacity, resulting in decreasing pH-values [32].
This example immediately illustrates the second issue associated with shake flask cultivations: the lack of ability to perform online measurements, or more precisely standardized and comparable application of measurement techniques. Obviously, online data can be recorded, and this is usually conducted for the entire shaker using manufacturer specific software (e.g., eve for Infors HT or Insight for Kühner AG shakers). In an effort to record not only data in the incubator (such as shaking rate or temperature), supplementary measuring systems have also been developed. Several approaches exist to describe the properties in shake flasks during cultivation: the RAMOS [33,34,35,36,37], Kuhner TOM [38] and BCPreFerm [39] systems using off-gas measurement; the cell growth quantifier using backscattered light (BSL) [40,41]; the SENBIT system using a multiparameter probe [42]; the Shake Flask Reader SFR using shake flasks equipped with pH and DO sensor spots; the CITSens Memo performing glucose and lactate measurement [43]; and the Shake Flask Reader SFR vario, combining DO, pH, and CO2 sensor spots with backscattered light measurements [44,45].
All these developments simplify or eliminate manual sampling in shake flasks, thus enabling online monitoring. However, most data analysis, such as KPI calculations, are still performed manually. To facilitate and standardize data evaluation of shake flask experiments and thus also improve the QbD approach, algorithm assisted evaluation techniques can be used [46]. Since most machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithms require a large amount of data to make robust predictions, these algorithms tend not to be suitable as there is rarely enough training data in early-stage development [47].
This paper presents a novel workflow which uses non-invasive online measurements in shake flask experiments and enhanced data science to deliver automated and standardized real time calculation of KPIs for early-stage development experiments. The goal is to standardize media and strain characterization and make it more efficient, thus enabling better comparison between results. This approach consists of the following four steps:
  • Use a recipe database as a basis for knowledge management;
  • Automate and standardize detection of the exponential growth phase within shake flask experiments with enhanced data science;
  • Automate determination of KPIs based on the detected exponential growth phase and data from the recipe database;
  • Store KPIs in the database to simplify and enable comparison with other recipes.
The results were verified in two stages. First, the obtained online KPIs were calculated manually and, where possible, compared with the corresponding offline or literature data. Subsequently, the manually evaluated data were compared with that of the workflow. The variations in application, be it different filling heights, use of baffles, variation in medium, cell size, growth rate, oxygen demand and shaking speed were illustrated using representatives of microbial (E. coli and S. cerevisiae), plant (Vitis vinifera), mammalian (CHO, HEK) and insect cell cultures (High Five).

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Workflow

The goal of this workflow, as shown in Figure 1, was to automatically identify the best fit for the exponential growth phase in the OUR or BSL signal. For the exponential fit to best match the observed exponential phase of the selected growth signal (BSL or OUR), it was important that the start, phasestart, and end, phaseend, of the exponential growth were set as accurately as possible. Unfortunately, signals are often subject to interference caused by high sensor noise, user errors or poorly chosen settings. The conditions of the shake flasks used, such as baffles or scratches on the flask surface, also contribute significantly to the signal to noise ratio, resulting in the start and end of the phase not being easy to identify. Therefore, the developed algorithm must detect and be robust against such disturbances. To enhance the robustness of the algorithm, a recipe was used, particularly in the initial phase fitting, which advised the algorithm of the approximate time interval when the exponential growth phase wa expected. The recipe contained rudimentary meta information, as shown in Table 1. Except for the two input values in the recipe, this workflow operated automatically without any user input or output.
The different recipes of the tested organisms were only differentiated according to whether the culture had a long or a short cultivation period. Not only was the growth signal itself important for detecting the exponential growth phase, but the information from the oxygen signal was also used, as its characteristics are useful for interpreting growth behavior.
The created workflow consists of three parts. The initial phase fitting and noise reduction, optimization of phasestart, and optimization phaseend are explained in the following sub chapters.

2.1.1. Initial Phase Fitting and Noise Reduction

First, the raw signal of the OUR or biomass and oxygen are read in. In the second step, the minimum oxygen value is determined, since this characteristic can be the first indication of the end of the exponential growth curve, phaseend. During cultivation, an oxygen signal usually has several minima, however, in this case only the minima between the beginning of the experiment and the time when the O2 signal reaches a certain threshold (O2, threshold), when exponential growth is practically no longer possible, is of interest. The O2, threshold can differ from organism to organism, therefore, this information is stored in the recipe. The identified minima of the oxygen signal between the start of the experiment and O2, threshold is then stored as the initial phaseend.
The maximum value of the oxygen signal can be an indication of the start of the exponential growth curve (phasestart) and is, therefore, identified in the next step. At the beginning of the cultivation in particular, oxygen may increase sharply in the experimental set-up (e.g., the time needed for temperature and oxygen equilibration after inoculation where the flask stands unmoved at room temperature), leading to a misidentification of the maximum oxygen value. To enhance robustness of this workflow, the search for the maximum value is restricted to a time window relating to an assumed growth speed. A distinction was drawn between slow (Vitis vinifera), medium (HEK, CHO) and fast-growing organisms (E. coli, S. cerevisiae), as listed in Table 1.
The next step is to check for peaks or plateaus in the timeframe of phasestart and O2,min in the growth signal, as these peaks can be another good indicator for a metabolic change and, therefore, for the end of the exponential growth (phaseend). However, this step is particularly prone to errors if the signal is too noisy. Therefore, a check is performed in advance to establish whether the signal has a high signal-to-noise ratio. If this is the case, the growth signal was smoothed with a Savitzky–Golay filter provided by the SciPy Python package [48,49].
If a peak or a plateau is found in the defined time frame, this characteristic is set as phaseend. If neither of these two features can be identified, O2, min is stored as phaseend.

2.1.2. Optimization of Phase Start

At this point, the duration between phasestart and phaseend is assumed to be the maximum possible exponential growth phase. However, an exponential fit in this initial time period may lead to a poor-quality fit as a result of a low coefficient of determination (R2) or a high root mean square error (RMSE). The value for R2 can range between 0 and 1 and explains how well the model predicts the observed data in terms of proportion, whereas a value close to 1 is favorable. To increase the quality, and thus also the accuracy of the fit, the setting of phasestart and phaseend are optimized, as shown in the next parts of the workflow.
First, an initial fit between phasestart and phaseend is established, leading to y ^ . Using a sliding window, a loop operated from half of y ^ to phasestart. In each iteration, the R2 value of y ^ and the observed growth data within the sliding window are calculated. If the value of R2 worsened substantially, the loop is aborted and phasestart is moved forward to the time point before the difference between y ^ and the signal became too large.

2.1.3. Optimization of Phase End

After phasestart was optimized, the setting of phaseend can be improved. The first step is to create an exponential, temporary fit between the updated phasestart and half of y ^ , resulting in y ^ t e m p . In a loop, one after the other, another measuring point is added to y ^ t e m p and refitted. With each new fit the RMSE is returned, providing information on how far, on average, the predicted values are from the observed data, whereas a low RMSE was favorable. If the RMSE increased x times in a row, the loop is aborted, since the exponential growth phase is assumed to be over. This query ensures that a local worsening of the fit, caused by noise, does not result in the optimization being aborted too early. The time point before the RMSE becomes deteriorated is set as new phaseend. If there is no worsening of the RMSE, the phaseend remaines unchanged. Lastly, an exponential fit is once again created between the updated phasestart and phaseend, which leads to the final y ^ .

2.2. Cultivation Results

To perform process-oriented strain characterization, as many KPIs as possible should be obtained from online data with minimal manual sampling effort. To allow a uniform evaluation despite the strong differences in the cultivation of plant and animal cell cultures and microbial fermentations, we decided on the following four relevant parameters for strain characterization:
  • maximum specific growth rate µmax;
  • cell-specific oxygen consumption rate qO2;
  • biomass and product yield YX/S and YP/S;
  • maximum achieved biomass concentration CX,max.
However, to determine these parameters, some factors need to be known, for example, the initial biomass CX,0 and nutrient CS,0 concentrations, as well as the maximum oxygen saturation of the medium cL,O2* and the oxygen transfer rate (OTR) in the shake flask. The conditions at the start of the experiment are ideally measured or calculated directly during inoculation. The maximum oxygen saturation in the medium depends on its composition as well as the incubator atmosphere and can be determined by a blank measurement and subsequently included in the calculation or adjusted by setting the dissolved oxygen concentration to 100% after saturation with air has been achieved. To calculate C O 2 * , the atmospheric pressure p, the molar fraction of oxygen x O 2 (which is lowered in CO2 incubators) and the temperature-dependent Henry constant must be known:
C O 2 * = p x O 2 H ( T )
Several approaches exist for determining OTRs in shake flasks: existing mathematical approximations [37], measurement [50,51] or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) [52,53]. If the volumetric mass transfer coefficient kLa is known, the OTR can be calculated as follows:
O T R = k L a ( C O 2 * C O 2 )
Provided that the system is in a state of equilibrium, the OTR is equal to the oxygen uptake rate (OUR), which is the product of the biomass concentration C x and q O 2 :
q O 2 C X = k L a ( C O 2 * C O 2 ) OUR = OTR
Thus, q O 2 can be calculated if the OTR and CX are known. As qO2 is assumed to be constant during the exponential growth phase, CX is proportional to the OTR and hence can be calculated if C x , 0 is known. The biomass concentration at timepoint t C x ( t ) as well as μ max can, therefore, be estimated by a curve fitting to Equation (4). This is possible using offline biomass measurements, OUR data or biomass concentrations from backscattered light measurements.
C X ( t ) = C X , 0 e μ max ( t t 0 )
Often-used yield coefficients compare the substrate used ( C S ) with biomass ( Y X / S ) or product ( Y P / S ) formation but require metabolite measurements or well-trained models to do so.
Y X / S = C X , t C S , t / Y P / S = C P , t C S , t
The specific growth rates determined online were compared and validated against those calculated offline. Since qO2 could only be determined using online data, literature data were used as a reference.

2.2.1. Bacteria—E. coli

In the first experiments carried out with E. coli W3310 in complex media, it was found that opening the shaking incubator as well as sampling directly from the shake flask significantly influenced the measurement result, and subsequently, determination of the KPIs was no longer possible. Therefore, it was determined for all experiments that only at the beginning and end of the shaking would the incubator be opened and, if necessary, a sample taken. Various settings were tested for the different cultivation conditions, and two example results are shown in Figure 2. Cultivations in TB medium showed that the automated growth rate determined by the OUR led to good results (Figure 2A), with µOUR, auto. = 1.4048 h−1 compared with the manually determined values from online (µOUR, man. = 1.4201 h−1) and offline data (µCDW, offline = 1.3237 h−1). The exponential growth phase ended after approximately 5 h due to oxygen restriction and passed into a phase of slow, oxygen limited growth which lasted for 16 h. This phase was characterized by a plateau in the OUR. The end of the experiment was visible due to a sharp increase in oxygen and a drop in the OUR signal. This indicated the depletion of nutrients, in particular of glycerin and the consumable components of the complex media.
Utilizing the BSL signal was, in general, less successful. Although a qualitative growth curve could be determined, the estimated values were too low. An example is depicted in Figure 2B, where the estimated growth rate using the BSL signal (µBSL, auto. = 0.7561 h−1) is significantly lower than the OUR (µOUR, auto. = 1.2075 h−1) or offline (µCDW, offline = 1.3237 h−1) based values. Additionally, in other experiments, OUR proved to outperform the BSL signal irrespective of whether baffles were used or not.
The calculation of growth rates from the OUR was successful for both complex media. For the LB experiments (six flasks), a growth rate of µCDW, offline = 1.2982 ± 0.1153 h−1 was determined offline, which agreed well with the values calculated manually (µman., online = 1.2752 ± 0.2049 h−1) and automatically (µauto., online = 1.2075 ± 0.1511 h−1) from online data. Similar values were obtained in the experiments in TB medium (6 flasks). With offline data, a growth rate of µCDW, offline = 1.2889 ± 0.0453 h−1 was estimated, compared with µman., online = 1.3421 ± 0.0419 h−1 with manually and µauto., online = 1.3778 ± 0.0191 h−1 with automatically determined online data. The TB experiments had a biomass yield of YX/S = 1.679 ± 0.032 gCDW gGly−1, whereby a CDWmax of 9.11 ± 0.21 g L−1 was achieved. For the experiments in LB medium, no yield was estimated as no carbon source was added. The maximum biomass concentration was 1.33 ± 0.10 g L−1 just from the complex media ingredients.
To investigate the influence of the media components, experiments were carried out with a chemically defined medium according to Biener, in addition to the complex media listed so far. The most striking differences were the coloration (clear instead of brown) and the lower variability of the media components. Interestingly, the clear color did not prove advantageous for BSL measurements in the low OD600 range. On the contrary, the growth rates calculated in this way were unrealistic, which could possibly be explained by low absorption and the associated increased reflection of the light from the liquid surface that acts as a mirror. The defined media components, on the other hand, ensured higher reproducibility, which was evident in the lower standard deviations. All determined growth rates were significantly lower compared with the complex media. With offline measurements, a growth rate µCDW, offline of 0.620 ± 0.019 h−1 was determined. The manually determined growth rate based on online data was slightly higher (µman., online = 0.6432 ± 0.004 h−1), and the algorithm-based rate was slightly lower (µauto., online = 0.582 ± 0.020 h−1). The biomass yield (YX/S = 0.434 ± 0.065 gCDW gGlc−1) and the maximum biomass concentration CDWmax = 3.51 ± 1.27 g L−1 were significantly lower. This can be explained by the missing energy source from the complex media components and the absence of pH regulation, which led to an acidic regime as a result of acetate production. The specific oxygen consumption rate qO2 in the Biener medium was 2.132 ± 0.413 × 10−2 mol g−1 h−1, which agreed with reported data for E. coli in chemically defined media. Andersen and von Meyenburg reported a qO2 of 1.98 ± 0.17 × 10−2 mol g−1 h−1 in minimal medium with 2 g L−1 glucose during the exponential growth phase [54]. Lin et al. estimated a qO2 of 2 ± 0.2 × 10−2 mol g−1 h−1 with the same strain in chemically defined Teich media in a batch phase process [55]. Further data on experiments with E. coli can be found in Appendix B.

2.2.2. Yeast—S. cerevisiae

The basic design of the S. cerevisiae experiments corresponded to those with E. coli, but with higher working volumes. Of particular interest in these yeast cultivations were changes in metabolism that were visible online and were associated with different cultivation phases (Figure 3). After a brief adaptation period, the yeast grew exponentially, consuming glucose, and producing ethanol (between start and 5 h). The highest growth rate was expected during this phase. Thus, the algorithm cut off the adaptation phase and used the short increase in oxygen to set the phase starting and ending points. This shift from glucose consumption and ethanol formation to ethanol consumption was also visible in the pH, which instead of decreasing, started to increase. During ethanol consumption, the suspension was oxygen limited (in this example, between 8 and 21 h) and thus, the informative value of oxygen and OUR data decreased. After 18 h, a change in pH was visible, which may indicate the switch from ethanol to acetate or complex media components as energy sources. Finally, after 21 h, oxygen saturation and pH increased sharply while the OUR dropped, indicating a complete depletion of energy sources and the end of the cultivation. The online calculated growth rate of µOUR, auto. = 0.445 h−1 fit very well to the manually determined ones using online data (µOUR, man. = 0.454 h−1 and µCDW, offline = 0.453 h−1). Furthermore, with the online measurements, the qO2 was determined to be 3.12 mmol g−1 h−1, which was comparable to the literature results with S. cerevisiae [56].
The growth rate estimation using the online backscattered light signal was less successful and associated with greater deviations (Figure 4). For the above-described experiment, a µBSL, auto. of 0.546 h−1 was calculated. Even the manual determination using the backscattered light signal resulted in a comparatively large deviation (µBSL, man. = 0.511 h−1), indicating that this method is not suitable for accurately and reliably determining KPIs.
The KPIs for S. cerevisiae were determined in 10 shake flask experiments under different cultivation conditions (however, always at 30 °C and with YPD), resulting in growth rates of µCDW, offline = 0.496 ± 0.034 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.489 ± 0.045 h−1 and µOUR, auto = 0.474 ± 0.042 h−1, with a biomass yield, YX/S, of 0.812 ± 0.168 gCDW gGlc−1 and a qO2 = 2.588 ± 0.392 × 10−3 mol g−1 h−1. The relatively large standard deviation in the biomass yield can be explained by metabolic differences in baffled and unbaffled flasks. The latter reach oxygen limitation earlier, increasing the total cultivation time and requiring more energy for maintenance metabolism. This was also visible in the maximum achieved biomass. In baffled flasks, CDWmax was 9.4 g L−1, whereas in unbaffled flasks, CDWmax was 7.7 g L−1. The type of flask had no influence on the maximum growth rate in the batch experiments performed, since exponential growth had already been achieved before oxygen limitation occurred.

2.2.3. Plant Cells—Vitis vinifera

The cultivation of plant cells had some major differences compared with the microbial fermentations considered so far. First, they grew much more slowly, with doubling times of three days or more. This was accompanied by correspondingly long cultivation times, usually two weeks for V. vinifera batch cultivations. At the same time, very high cell densities could be achieved, so that up to 80% of the suspension could consist of cells. This was associated with a significant increase in viscosity. The metabolism of sucrose could be regarded as a metabolic peculiarity, which was first enzymatically and extracellularly cleaved into glucose and fructose. Subsequent use occurred simultaneously, with glucose being preferentially consumed. These metabolic changes were also very clearly visible in the online signals (Figure 5). After the sucrose had been completely cleaved and the cells had completed their adaptation phase (72 h), there was a brief increase in the O2 signal. A short adaptation in the O2 signal was also seen when the glucose had been completely consumed (168 h). Particularly striking was the strong decrease in the dissolved oxygen concentration after 264 h, the time at which the last carbon source, fructose, was consumed.
This illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of measuring the oxygen in plant cell shake flask cultivations. This, and corresponding knowledge of plant physiology, allowed substrate consumption to be followed online without having to wait for time-consuming substrate measurements such as HPLC. However, these “jumps” in the oxygen signal caused deviations in the OUR calculated from it, making it unsuitable for calculating the growth rate.
In this case, the size of the plant cells and the high cell density within the suspension proved to be an advantage. The BSL signal was clear and unnoisy throughout the cultivation period and correlated very well to the cell dry weight concentration, even in the death phase (Figure 5). The algorithm-based growth rate calculated from this (µBSL, auto. = 0.0090 h−1) was also very similar to the rates calculated manually (µBSL, man. = 0.0093 h−1) and offline (µCDW,offline = 0.0090 h−1). The pH signal could be used to interpret the use of inorganic metabolites. The preferential uptake of ammonium and phosphate in the adaptation phase was accompanied by a strong decrease in pH. During the subsequent uptake of nitrate, the pH increased continuously until the end of cultivation (Figure 5A).
The KPIs determined from all the experiments (12 flasks) can be summed up as follows: The growth rates calculated using µBSL, auto. = 0.0080 ± 0.001 h−1, µBSL, man. = 0.0088 ± 0.001 h−1 and µCDW, offline = 0.0084 ± 0.001 h−1 matched well, with a slight underestimation of the manually calculated growth rates based on the BSL signal and a slight overestimation when manually estimating them. The biomass yield YX/S was 0.4744 ± 0.0366 gCDW gGlc−1, resulting in maximum cell dry weight concentrations of CDWmax = 15.298 ± 0.881 g L−1. The specific oxygen consumption rate qO2 was 2.293 ± 0.400 × 10−4 mol g−1 h−1, compared with qO2 values from 1.1 to 7.1 × 10−4 mol g−1 h−1 in V. vinifera L. cv Gamay suspension cultures in Gamborg B5 medium, reported by Pépin et al. [57].

2.2.4. Animal Cells

The study of animal cell cultures was performed in several steps. First, the two CHO cell lines were characterized (Figure 6). Similar to the microbial cultivations, the OUR signal provided a very good estimation of the specific growth rate. Due to the relatively high filling volume in combination with the lower shaking rates and doubling times in the range of 18 to 24 h, the signal was not noisy and was easy to interpret Figure 6). For the ExpiCHO-S 6H8 cell line, the µOUR, auto. = 0.0370 h−1 was similar to the µOUR, man. = 0.0365 h−1 and both were slightly lower than the µVCD, offline with 0.0389 h−1 (Figure 6A). For CHO DP12 #1934, the results were all similar, with µOUR, auto. = 0.0340 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.0347 h−1, and µVCD, offline = 0.0348 h−1 (Figure 6B). The pH signal was very interesting too, as it indicated whether the metabolic shift from lactate formation to consumption was successful or not. The increase in pH after 120 h for the ExpiCHO-S cells (Figure 6A) correlated to the uptake of lactate and thus total consumption of the initial glucose, resulting in higher yields compared with an unsuccessful lactate shift with no pH change at the end in the depicted CHO-DP12 cultivation (Figure 6B). The BSL signal showed a surprising trend for animal cell cultures. For the first 70 h, there was no change, despite cell growth. However, as viability decreased, the BSL signal increased. For animal cell cultures, this resulted in a correlation of the BSL signal with dead cell density. This could be explained by a change in the cell surface during death, which was also visually indicated by a milky turbidity in the cell suspension during the death phase.
The growth rates based on OUR for ExpiCHO-S (6 flasks) again showed good agreement with µVCD, offline = 0.0390 ± 0.007 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.0359 ± 0.005 h−1, and µOUR, auto = 0.0362 ± 0.007 h−1. Comparable results were also obtained with the CHO DP-12 cells (eight flasks), resulting in growth rates of µVCD, offline = 0.0349 ± 0.017 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.0335 ± 0.018 h−1, and µOUR, auto = 0.0327 ± 0.011 h−1. For both CHO cell lines, the OUR-based growth rates were slightly lower than the offline data-based values. The standard deviation was minimal, indicating that with standardized inoculum preparation and chemically defined media, high reproducibility would be achievable. More significantly than growth rates, the cells differed in yield, with YX/S = 3.126 ± 0.065 × 106 cells gGlc−1 for ExpiCHO-S and YX/S = 1.990 ± 0.140 × 106 cells gGlc−1 for CHO DP-12. The lower cell specific oxygen consumption rate for ExpiCHO-S (qO2 = 2.283 ± 0.238 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1) compared with CHO DP-12 cells (qO2 = 2.884 ± 0.623 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1) indicated that ExpiCHO-S cells seem to have a more effective metabolism. This was also visible in the product yield, which was double for ExpiCHO-S (YP/S = 0.0575 ± 0.0055 gIgG gGlc−1) compared with CHO DP-12 (YP/S = 0.0267 ± 0.0038 gIgG gGlc−1). The qO2 values were in good agreement with the literature values (3.0 to 3.2 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1 for CHO DP-12 [58] and 2.3 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1 for CHO-S cells [59]). Additional data on the CHO DP-12 and as well as the characterization of HEK and High Five cultivations are provided in Appendix B.

2.3. Evaluation of Measurement Techniques

No single measurement technique was suitable for all of the organism-flask combinations, but at least one was found to be appropriate in each examined case (Table 2). In general, the OUR was more diverse in its use and may be the signal of choice for all culture types except plant cells. However, there were some drawbacks. First, the kLa-value must be known and an initial oxygen saturation until equilibrium must be performed, as even slight variations (>1% difference in oxygen saturation) have significant effects on the growth rate calculation. Second, if the suspension reaches oxygen limitation, no information gain is possible. Finally, signal disturbances, whether resulting from metabolic changes or from disturbing the shaking platform, may render the automated signal interpretation useless. Thus, it is recommended not to open the shaker and especially not to sample directly from the measurement flasks. Furthermore, the change in the shaker atmosphere and temperature may also have a significant influence on the signal.
The BSL signal was not affected by oxygen limitation and the interruption caused by a stopped shaker or a removed flask was less severe. Thus, the signal is relatively robust, as long as the culture is dense enough, which is the case for plant cell cultures or higher density microbial cultivations. However, baffled flasks and the bubbles they introduce into the suspension will result in a higher signal to noise ratio, especially for low filling volumes and high shaking rates. Interestingly, changes in size and surface affect the BSL signal, resulting in the detection of mainly dead cells in animal cell cultivations.
The pH wa an excellent supporting parameter, indicating metabolic activities, e.g., the switch from glucose consumption and acetate production to acetate consumption or the metabolic shift from lactate formation to consumption for CHO cells. Furthermore, these metabolic changes were still visible, even if the oxygen signal could not be used due to oxygen limiting conditions.

2.4. Evaluation of KPIs

To evaluate the KPIs, the algorithm-based online data were compared with manually calculated online and offline data. All manual calculations were performed by the same user to reduce any human-related bias which may occur if several users manually set the exponential growth phases.
As shown in the previous subsections, the OUR can be used for most organisms and is essential for the calculation of the qO2. The BSL signal does not correlate linearly to the OD600, which is probably the reason for the lower accuracy of this method for growth rate estimations. Calibration allows the BSL signal to be converted directly to OD600 or CDW, increasing accuracy. However, this involves further manual work, which contradicts the approach presented here. Manually and automatically determined growth rates based on the OUR and the BSL data are compared in Table 3. Very good agreement between the growth rates determined offline and by means of the algorithm is shown, with an average deviation of 6.5%. The highest deviation of 12.8% was found for the HEK cells, and the deviation was less than 7% for all other cells.
The obtained online data could be confirmed by the measured offline data. However, an additional verification, especially for the specific oxygen uptake rates obtained only by online data, resulted from a comparison with already published values (Table 4). This comparison shows both the accuracy and the advantages of the proposed approach. Provided that comparable experiments (i.e., strain, medium, and process conditions similar) are available, the determined values of the presented approach compare very well with them.
However, as soon as the selected parameters deviated more strongly from the reference data, the range of literature values was also significantly larger, as can be seen, for example, in the growth rate of High Five cells or the specific oxygen uptake rate of S. cerevisiae. Another problem arose when complex media components were used, which made it very difficult to compare the maximum cell number or yield for media such as LB, TB and YPD. It was equally difficult to determine the biomass yield of High Five and HEK293 cells in a batch process without infection, as most publications are dedicated to the much more challenging production fed-batch processes with virus infection. Therefore, for the characterization of a new cell–medium combination or when changing the process conditions, the experimental determination of the KPI is recommended, which can be performed easily, automatically, and precisely with the presented approach.

3. Conclusions and Outlook

In contrast to state-of-the-art approaches, where media and strains are laboriously characterized or optimized using manually and invasively determined KPIs, the presented, novel workflow can determine KPIs automatically and standardize them in early-stage bioprocess development, as described in Section 2.1. By combining data science methods, adjusted to the small amount of data usually available in early-stage development, and measurements of online, non-invasive sensors, it has been shown that KPIs, which are comparable to results from the literature and manual evaluation, can be efficiently extracted from shake flask experiments. Furthermore, it has also been shown that the discussed workflow provides solid and robust results under realistic conditions.
The experiments carried out to evaluate the performance of the algorithm were conducted by different operators, over different time periods, with different flasks, and with different media and organisms, providing a good representation of the expected reality in bioprocess development. In Section 2.2, we have shown that the developed workflow can identify the exponential growth phase for the performed experiments just as well as an experienced user can using manual evaluation, see Table 3. Clearly, the accuracy of the algorithm depends on the quality of the online signal that is used, but the phase optimization technique using the algorithm and the recipe database substantially contribute to increasing the robustness of the workflow. Therefore, we conclude that the application of this algorithm in research and industry can help save time and resources for strain and medium characterization and optimization.
The robustness of phase detection could be improved by using further online signals such as dissolved CO2 in addition to pH, dissolved oxygen, and OUR or BSL, as these data parameters also provide further insight into the growth behavior of the observed organism. Further experiments should verify the application of challenging cultivation conditions. This includes phototrophically growing organisms such as algae or fungal and bacterial cultures, which have a mycelial growth, e.g., used for antibiotic production, and are preferably cultivated on a growth surface but can also grow on the measuring surface of the sensor spots, and pose a challenge when cultivating in shake flasks [80].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. General Equipment and Online Measurement Systems

The experiments were performed in 250 or 500 mL disposable Erlenmeyer flasks (Corning Inc., New York, NY, US) with and without baffles in Multitron Pro, Multitron Cell (Infors HT, Bottmingen, CH) and LT-X (Adolf Kühner AG, Birsfelden, CH) shaking incubators with 25 or 50 mm shaking amplitudes. Online measurements of backscattered light, dissolved oxygen concentration, and pH were carried out using up to four SFR vario devices (PreSens, Regensburg, DE) and corresponding disposable shake flasks equipped with sensor spots (Figure 7). Both sensor spots contain reversible fluorescent dyes that indicate changes in O2 and pH. In contrast to electrodes, these sensors do not require calibration as they come pre-calibrated. Calibration constants are valid for a certain production cycle of flasks, indicated by a batch number. The device is placed inside the shaker and has integrated rechargeable batteries. The controlling PC establishes a wireless Bluetooth connection to initiate the readouts at flexible time intervals. To avoid disturbing the online measurements by stopping the shaker and removing the shake flasks, all comparative offline measurements (except for the determination of initial cell density and substrate concentration, which was performed in each shake flask) were conducted in reference flasks.
The PreSens system was chosen to establish the workflow because the simultaneous measurement of dissolved oxygen, biomass signal via backscattered light, and the calculated oxygen uptake rate allowed cross-validation of the data obtained. However, the approach can also be performed with other systems described in Section 1, such as the RAMOS, the Kuhner TOM or the CGQ. Additionally, of interest is the combination of different measurement systems to ensure a comparable verification, as demonstrated by Anderlei et al. [81].

4.2. Cultivation Details

4.2.1. Bacteria Cultivation—E. coli

The experiments were performed using the W3110 E. coli strain (thyA3662supOλ−, DSMZ ordering number: 5911) and three media:
  • Lysogeny broth (LB) medium with 5 g L−1 yeast extract (cat. Y1625, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MI, USA), 10 g L−1 tryptone (cat. 95039, Sigma-Aldrich) and 5 g L−1 sodium chloride (cat. S9888, Sigma-Aldrich) [82];
  • Terrific broth (TB) medium with 24 g L−1 yeast extract (cat. Y1625, Sigma-Aldrich), 20 g L−1 tryptone (cat. 95039, Sigma-Aldrich), 4 mL L−1 glycerin (cat. 49770, Sigma-Aldrich) and a phosphate buffer consisting of 0.17 mol L−1 KH2PO4 (cat. P5655, Sigma-Aldrich) and 0.72 mol L−1 K2HPO4 (cat. P3786, Sigma-Aldrich) [83];
  • Modified Biener medium consisting of glucose (10 g L−1), a mineral salt solution, a trace element solution and MgSO4 solution [60]. Details can be found in Appendix A.
The two complex media LB and TB have the same complex components, but TB is richer, has an additional carbon source (glycerin), and is buffered. The LB was mixed completely and autoclaved, while the TB media and buffer were autoclaved separately and mixed after the components had cooled down. The chemically defined media according to Biener et al. [60] with reduced glucose concentrations compared with the original recipe, consisted of different salt and trace element stock solutions as well as glucose and MgSO4 solutions (Appendix A). All stock solutions were autoclaved separately and mixed after cooling down. Accordingly, the influence of different media (complex vs. defined), different temperatures and different shaking conditions were tested. For biomass quantification, the optical density at 600 nm (OD600) was measured using a SmartSpec Plus photometer (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, US) and the cell dry weight (CDW) was determined gravimetrically in 1.5 mL tubes. Metabolites were analyzed using a Cedex Bio (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and the corresponding kits for glucose, ammonia, and phosphate.

4.2.2. Yeast Cultivation—S. cerevisiae

S. cerevisiae H1022 (ATCC cat. 32167), a Crabtree-positive yeast, was selected as the second microbial representative to monitor the metabolic switch between glucose uptake and ethanol formation to ethanol consumption online. For these cultivations, the peptone, dextrose, yeast extract (YPD) complex medium was used [84], composed of 10 g L−1 yeast extract (cat. Y1625, Sigma-Aldrich), 20 g L−1 tryptone (cat. 70173, Sigma-Aldrich) and 20 g L−1 glucose (cat. G2870, Sigma-Aldrich), which were autoclaved together.
Temperature was set to 37 °C, shaking frequency to 180 rpm, and shaking amplitude to 50 mm. Biomass was determined identically to the E. coli experiments. For metabolite analytics, ethanol was measured instead of ammonia.

4.2.3. Plant Suspension Cultivation—Vitis vinifera

As a model plant cell suspension culture, Vitis vinifera cv. Uva italia was selected. The cell line was established by Silvie Cuperus in 2003 [67] and maintained as calli (25 °C, without light, subcultivation every 4 weeks). The suspension culture was cultivated in a modified Murashige and Skoog [85] medium (cat. M0222, Duchefa Biochemie B.V., Haarlem, Netherlands) with 30 g L−1 sucrose (cat. 4621.5, Roth AG, Arlesheim, Switzerland), 0.25 g L−1 casein hydrolysate (cat. C1301, Duchefa), 1 µmol L−1 kinetin (cat. K3378, Sigma-Aldrich) and 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA, cat. N1641, Sigma-Aldrich) each. All components were mixed, the pH was adjusted to 5.8 using 1 mol L−1 KOH (cat. 1091081000, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) and the media was sterilized by filtration (VacuCap, cat. 4622, Pall, Port Washington, NY, USA). Biomass analytics included the measurement of packed cell volume as well as fresh and dry biomass. Electrical conductivity and pH were determined from the supernatant by probes (FiveEasy, Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland). Metabolic analytics for sucrose, glucose, fructose, phosphate, ammonia, and nitrate in the supernatant were performed by HPLC (Shimadzu Deutschland GmbH, Duisburg, Germany) with a 940 Professional Vario IC (Metrohm Schweiz AG, Zofingen, Switzerland).

4.2.4. Animal Cell Cultivation—CHO, High Five, HEK293

Two Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines, one human embryo kidney (HEK) 293 and one insect cell line (Trichoplusia ni BTI-Tn-5B1-4, High Five) were used for the animal cell culture experiments (Table 5).
Both CHO cell lines produce the antibody immunoglobulin G (IgG) and behave in the same manner as industrial mammalian production cell lines. HEK cells are also widely used, but tend to form larger aggregates [86]. High Five insect cells have similar morphological characteristics to CHO cells but are cultured without CO2 based pH control and at lower temperatures. The applied cultivation conditions are summarized in Table 6. The effect of different clones, media and cultivation conditions should test the robustness of the methodology.
Cell density and viability were measured using a Cedex HiRes (Roche Custom Biotech) for the CHO and High Five cells, and with a NucleoCounter NC200 (Chemometec A/S, Allerod, Denmark) for the HEK293 cells. Metabolites (glucose, glutamine, ammonia), as well as the product IgG, were determined using a Cedex Bio (Roche Custom Biotech) and the corresponding analytic kits.

4.3. Software

The SFR varios that were used were controlled by the associated PreSens Flask Studio PFS software. The software connected to the device at each time point to initiate the measurement and retrieve the data that were stored in the integrated SQL database. Data were then visualized online as diagrams and could be compared with historical runs in a cumulative graph.
For more advanced analytics, as described in chapter 2.1, the data were transferred from the SQL database via a REST API to commercially available PAS-X Savvy 2022.03 software (Körber Pharma Software GmbH, Vienna, Austria). This additional interface was implemented in PFS. This software was used to develop the relevant algorithms and analyses for this work using Python 3.79 (Python Software Foundation, available online: https://www.python.org/, accessed on 22 March 2022).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.W.M. and B.P.; methodology, B.P. and R.W.M.; software, B.P.; validation, R.W.M.; investigation, R.W.M.; data curation, R.W.M.; writing—original draft preparation, R.W.M. and B.P.; writing—review and editing, G.T.J., D.E. and C.H.; visualization, B.P.; supervision, D.E.; project administration, G.T.J., D.E., C.H.; funding acquisition, G.T.J., D.E. and C.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Eureka Eurostars grant number 11795. The APC was funded by ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Christoph Herzog and Leandro Mancina for supporting the experimental investigations, Regine Eibl for her valuable feedback on the manuscript and Darren Mace for language support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Recipe for 1 L E.coli Medium

This recipe uses a modified medium from Biener et al. [60] with lowered glucose concentration.
All stock solutions were mixed after autoclaving.
  • 40 mL of glucose stock solution with 500 g L−1 glucose;
  • 480 mL of mineral stock solution, consisting of:
    o
    2.1 g L−1 (NH4)2 H-citrate;
    o
    4.2 g L−1 Na2SO4;
    o
    8.4 g L−1 (NH4)2SO4;
    o
    1.06 g L−1 NH4Cl;
    o
    31.6 g L−1 K2HPO4;
    o
    7.4 g L−1 NaH2PO4·H2O;
  • 4.5 mL of trace element solution, consisting of:
    o
    0.18 g L−1 CoCl2·6 H2O;
    o
    0.50 g L−1 CaCl2·2 H2O;
    o
    0.18 g L−1 ZnSO4·7 H2O;
    o
    0.10 g L−1 MnSO4·H2O;
    o
    10.05 g L−1 Na2-EDTA·2 H2O;
    o
    8.35 g L−1 FeCl3·6 H2O;
    o
    0.16 g L−1 CuSO4·5 H2O;
  • 2.2 mL of 1 mol L−1 MgSO4·7 H2O stock solution;
  • 473.3 mL of sterile deionized H2O.

Appendix B

Appendix B.1. Additional Cultivation Results

Appendix B.1.1. Bacteria—E. coli

Complementing the online data shown in Figure 2, an offline growth curve is depicted in Figure A1. For the experiment in LB medium, a maximum specific growth rate of µoffline = 1.323 h−1 was observed. When comparing the offline measurements with the backscattered light curve, the problem of non-linear correlation becomes apparent, which can lead to deviations in the calculation of the growth rate (µBSL, auto. = 0.7561 h−1).
The calculation based on the OUR proved to be much more robust. Neither the size and type of the flasks, nor the process conditions, exhibited an impact on the OUR-based growth rate or its estimation. To further test the approach, a temperature variation using the TB medium was carried out (Figure A2). For the selected range (20 to 37 °C), which covers typical cultivation conditions for E. coli in production processes, a linear relationship between temperature and growth rate was found.
Figure A1. Offline growth data of E. coli W3110 in LB medium. The difference in increase between offline and online measured biomass concentration in the absence of calibration leads to significant differences in the calculated growth rate (µoffline = 1.323 h1 compared with µBSL, auto. = 0.7561 h1).
Figure A1. Offline growth data of E. coli W3110 in LB medium. The difference in increase between offline and online measured biomass concentration in the absence of calibration leads to significant differences in the calculated growth rate (µoffline = 1.323 h1 compared with µBSL, auto. = 0.7561 h1).
Bioengineering 09 00339 g0a1
Figure A2. Dependence of growth rate on temperature in a E. coli cultivation (20 to 37 °C, 200 rpm, 25 mm shaking amplitude, 40 mL TB medium in 500 mL baffled shake flasks). The growth rates were calculated with online OUR data.
Figure A2. Dependence of growth rate on temperature in a E. coli cultivation (20 to 37 °C, 200 rpm, 25 mm shaking amplitude, 40 mL TB medium in 500 mL baffled shake flasks). The growth rates were calculated with online OUR data.
Bioengineering 09 00339 g0a2

Appendix B.1.2. Animal Cell Cultures

As a supplement to the CHO experiments, cultivations with HEK and High Five cells were additionally performed. The results of these experiments were comparable to the above-described CHO cell experiments (Figure A3). It was shown that neither the aggregation tendency of HEK cells nor the changed shaker atmosphere for High Five cells impacted the evaluation. At µOUR, auto. = 0.035 h−1, the algorithm-based growth rate was in very good agreement with the manually determined µOUR, man. = 0.0359 h−1 and the µVCD, offline with 0.0350 h−1 (Figure A3A). The metabolic shift of lactate formation to consumption at 100 h was clearly visible in the pH signal and matched the maximum OUR and lowest O2 concentration. For the High Five cells, µOUR, auto. = 0.0421 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.0436 h−1, and µVCD, offline = 0.0431 h−1 were also nearly identical.
Figure A3. Evaluation of HEK cells in 250 mL shake flasks with 80 mL working volume (A,C) and High Five cells in 500 mL shake flasks with 100 mL working volume (B,D). Both cultivations were performed with a shaking rate of 130 rpm and a shaking diameter of 50 mm. The OUR signal (yellow line) was used for growth rate calculation, resulting in µOUR, auto. = 0.00337 h−1 for HEK and µOUR, auto. = 0.0417 h−1 for High Five cells. The metabolic shift from lactate formation to consumption for HEK cells was clearly visible in the pH signal (purple line, A).
Figure A3. Evaluation of HEK cells in 250 mL shake flasks with 80 mL working volume (A,C) and High Five cells in 500 mL shake flasks with 100 mL working volume (B,D). Both cultivations were performed with a shaking rate of 130 rpm and a shaking diameter of 50 mm. The OUR signal (yellow line) was used for growth rate calculation, resulting in µOUR, auto. = 0.00337 h−1 for HEK and µOUR, auto. = 0.0417 h−1 for High Five cells. The metabolic shift from lactate formation to consumption for HEK cells was clearly visible in the pH signal (purple line, A).
Bioengineering 09 00339 g0a3
The determined OUR-based growth rates for HEK cells (6 flasks) were µVCD, offline = 0.0315 ± 0.0026 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.0365 ± 0.0010 h−1, and µOUR, auto = 0.0355 ± 0.0005 h−1. At 9.863 ± 3.76 × 10−14 mol cell−1 h−1, the qO2 was the lowest of all the investigated animal cells (slightly lower than values reported by Martinez-Monge of 1.3 to 1.58 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1 [84]). The YX/S of 1.3921 ± 0.1511 × 106 cells gGlc−1 was also lower than the CHO cultivation yields. The High Five cells showed the highest growth rates of all the animal cells with µVCD, offline = 0.0445 ± 0.0014 h−1, µOUR, man. = 0.0453 ± 0.0017 h−1, and µOUR, auto = 0.0430 ± 0.0010 h−1. This was combined with the highest qO2 of 4.185 ± 0.024 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1 and the lowest YX/S of 1.2737 ± 0.0566 × 106 cells gGlc−1. The qO2 lies in between the reported value for High Five cells in ExpressFive media, namely, 2.88 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1 from Rhiel et al. [74] and 9.00 × 10−13 mol cell−1 h−1 from Ghasemi et al. [75].

References

  1. Arrowsmith, J.; Miller, P. Phase II and Phase III Attrition Rates 2011–2012. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2013, 12, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Paul, S.M.; Mytelka, D.S.; Dunwiddie, C.T.; Persinger, C.C.; Munos, B.H.; Lindborg, S.R.; Schacht, A.L. How to Improve R & D Productivity: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Grand Challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. US Food and Drug Administration. Q8(R2)-Pharmaceutical-Development; Food and Drug Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. ICH Guideline Q9 on Quality Risk Management; European Medicines Agency: London, UK, 2015.
  5. ICH Guideline Q10 on Pharmaceutical Quality System-Step 5; European Medicines Agency: London, UK, 2015.
  6. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry PAT—A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Quality Assurance; Food and Drug Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  7. Katz, P.; Campbell, C. FDA 2011 Process Validation Guidance: Process Validation Revisited. J. GXP Compliance 2012, 16, 18. [Google Scholar]
  8. Borchert, D.; Suarez-Zuluaga, D.A.; Thomassen, Y.E.; Herwig, C. Risk Assessment and Integrated Process Modeling–an Improved QbD Approach for the Development of the Bioprocess Control Strategy. AIMS Bioeng. 2020, 7, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Politis, S.N.; Colombo, P.; Colombo, G.; Rekkas, D.M. Design of Experiments (DoE) in Pharmaceutical Development. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2017, 43, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Burdick, R.K.; LeBlond, D.J.; Pfahler, L.B.; Quiroz, J.; Sidor, L.; Vukovinsky, K.; Zhang, L. Process Design: Stage 1 of the FDA Process Validation Guidance. In Statistical Applications for Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) in the Pharmaceutical Industry; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 115–154. ISBN 978-3-319-50184-0. [Google Scholar]
  11. Abu-Absi, S.F.; Yang, L.; Thompson, P.; Jiang, C.; Kandula, S.; Schilling, B.; Shukla, A.A. Defining Process Design Space for Monoclonal Antibody Cell Culture. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2010, 106, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hakemeyer, C.; McKnight, N.; John, R.S.; Meier, S.; Trexler-Schmidt, M.; Kelley, B.; Zettl, F.; Puskeiler, R.; Kleinjans, A.; Lim, F.; et al. Process Characterization and Design Space Definition. Biologicals 2016, 44, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zurdo, J.; Arnell, A.; Obrezanova, O.; Smith, N.; Gómez de la Cuesta, R.; Gallagher, T.R.A.; Michael, R.; Stallwood, Y.; Ekblad, C.; Abrahmsén, L.; et al. Early Implementation of QbD in Biopharmaceutical Development: A Practical Example. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 605427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zurdo, J. Developability Assessment as an Early De-Risking Tool for Biopharmaceutical Development. Pharm. Bioprocess. 2013, 1, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Herwig, C.; Garcia-Aponte, O.F.; Golabgir, A.; Rathore, A.S. Knowledge Management in the QbD Paradigm: Manufacturing of Biotech Therapeutics. Trends Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kumar, D.; Batra, J.; Komives, C.; Rathore, A. QbD Based Media Development for the Production of Fab Fragments in E. Coli. Bioengineering 2019, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rathore, A.S.; Chopda, V.R.; Gomes, J. Knowledge Management in a Waste Based Biorefinery in the QbD Paradigm. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 215, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Goey, C.H.; Bell, D.; Kontoravdi, C. CHO Cell Cultures in Shake Flasks and Bioreactors Present Different Host Cell Protein Profiles in the Supernatant. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 144, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Winkler, K.; Socher, M.L. Shake Flask Technology. In Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology; Flickinger, M.C., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-470-05458-1. [Google Scholar]
  20. Klöckner, W.; Büchs, J. Advances in Shaking Technologies. Trends Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Maschke, R.W.; Seidel, S.; Bley, T.; Eibl, R.; Eibl, D. Determination of Culture Design Spaces in Shaken Disposable Cultivation Systems for CHO Suspension Cell Cultures. Biochem. Eng. J. 2022, 177, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schirmer, C.; Maschke, R.W.; Pörtner, R.; Eibl, D. An Overview of Drive Systems and Sealing Types in Stirred Bioreactors Used in Biotechnological Processes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 2225–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Xu, P.; Clark, C.; Ryder, T.; Sparks, C.; Zhou, J.; Wang, M.; Russell, R.; Scott, C. Characterization of TAP Ambr 250 Disposable Bioreactors, as a Reliable Scale-down Model for Biologics Process Development: Characterization and Application of Ambr 250 in Clone Selection and Process Development. Biotechnol. Prog. 2017, 33, 478–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Frey, L.J.; Krull, R. Microbioreactors for Process Development and Cell-Based Screening Studies. In Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germang, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Birgen, C.; Degnes, K.F.; Markussen, S.; Wentzel, A.; Sletta, H. Butanol Production from Lignocellulosic Sugars by Clostridium Beijerinckii in Microbioreactors. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2021, 14, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhu, Z.; Hu, Y.; Teixeira, P.G.; Pereira, R.; Chen, Y.; Siewers, V.; Nielsen, J. Multidimensional Engineering of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae for Efficient Synthesis of Medium-Chain Fatty Acids. Nat. Catal. 2020, 3, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. van Dijk, M.; Trollmann, I.; Saraiva, M.A.F.; Brandão, R.L.; Olsson, L.; Nygård, Y. Small Scale Screening of Yeast Strains Enables High-Throughput Evaluation of Performance in Lignocellulose Hydrolysates. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 11, 100532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brunner, M.; Doppler, P.; Klein, T.; Herwig, C.; Fricke, J. Elevated PCO2 Affects the Lactate Metabolic Shift in CHO Cell Culture Processes. Eng. Life Sci. 2018, 18, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Basan, M.; Hui, S.; Okano, H.; Zhang, Z.; Shen, Y.; Williamson, J.R.; Hwa, T. Overflow Metabolism in Escherichia Coli Results from Efficient Proteome Allocation. Nature 2015, 528, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kleman, G.L.; Strohl, W.R. Acetate Metabolism by Escherichia coli in High-Cell-Density Fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 3952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wolfe, A.J. The Acetate Switch. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2005, 69, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. De Mey, M.; De Maeseneire, S.; Soetaert, W.; Vandamme, E. Minimizing Acetate Formation in E. Coli Fermentations. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 34, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Anderlei, T.; Zang, W.; Papaspyrou, M.; Büchs, J. Online Respiration Activity Measurement (OTR, CTR, RQ) in Shake Flasks. Biochem. Eng. J. 2004, 17, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hansen, S.; Hariskos, I.; Luchterhand, B.; Büchs, J. Development of a Modified Respiration Activity Monitoring System for Accurate and Highly Resolved Measurement of Respiration Activity in Shake Flask Fermentations. J. Biol. Eng. 2012, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Munch, G.; Schulte, A.; Mann, M.; Dinger, R.; Regestein, L.; Rehmann, L.; Büchs, J. Online Measurement of CO2 and Total Gas Production in Parallel Anaerobic Shake Flask Cultivations. Biochem. Eng. J. 2020, 153, 107418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wewetzer, S.J.; Kunze, M.; Ladner, T.; Luchterhand, B.; Roth, S.; Rahmen, N.; Kloß, R.; Costa e Silva, A.; Regestein, L.; Büchs, J. Parallel Use of Shake Flask and Microtiter Plate Online Measuring Devices (RAMOS and BioLector) Reduces the Number of Experiments in Laboratory-Scale Stirred Tank Bioreactors. J. Biol. Eng. 2015, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Meier, K.; Klöckner, W.; Bonhage, B.; Antonov, E.; Regestein, L.; Büchs, J. Correlation for the Maximum Oxygen Transfer Capacity in Shake Flasks for a Wide Range of Operating Conditions and for Different Culture Media. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 109, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lapierre, F.M.; Schmid, J.; Ederer, B.; Ihling, N.; Büchs, J.; Huber, R. Revealing Nutritional Requirements of MICP-Relevant Sporosarcina Pasteurii DSM33 for Growth Improvement in Chemically Defined and Complex Media. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 22448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Brillet, F.; Cregut, M.; Durand, M.J.; Sweetlove, C.; Chenèble, J.C.; L’Haridon, J.; Thouand, G. Biodegradability Assessment of Complex Chemical Mixtures Using a Carbon Balance Approach. Green Chem. 2018, 20, 1031–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bruder, S.; Reifenrath, M.; Thomik, T.; Boles, E.; Herzog, K. Parallelised Online Biomass Monitoring in Shake Flasks Enables Efficient Strain and Carbon Source Dependent Growth Characterisation of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Microb. Cell Factories 2016, 15, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sörensen, M.; Khakimov, B.; Nurjadi, D.; Boutin, S.; Yi, B.; Dalpke, A.H.; Eigenbrod, T. Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Growth Media on in Vitro Sensitivity to Azithromycin in Multi-Drug Resistant Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Isolated from Cystic Fibrosis Patients. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2020, 9, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Vasala, A.; Panula, J.; Bollók, M.; Illmann, L.; Hälsig, C.; Neubauer, P. A New Wireless System for Decentralised Measurement of Physiological Parameters from Shake Flasks. Microb. Cell Factories 2006, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Spichiger, S.; Spichiger-Keller, U.E. New Single-Use Sensors for Online Measurement of Glucose and Lactate: The Answer to the PAT Initiative. In Single-Use Technology in Biopharmaceutical Manufacture; Eibl, R., Eibl, D., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 295–299. ISBN 978-0-470-90999-7. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ebert, F.V.; Reitz, C.; Cruz-Bournazou, M.N.; Neubauer, P. Characterization of a Noninvasive On-Line Turbidity Sensor in Shake Flasks for Biomass Measurements. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 132, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schmidt-Hager, J.; Ude, C.; Findeis, M.; John, G.T.; Scheper, T.; Beutel, S. Noninvasive Online Biomass Detector System for Cultivation in Shake Flasks. Eng. Life Sci. 2014, 14, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pretzner, B.; Maschke, R.W.; Haiderer, C.; John, G.T.; Herwig, C.; Sykacek, P. Predictive Monitoring of Shake Flask Cultures with Online Estimated Growth Models. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Johnstone, I.M.; Titterington, D.M. Statistical Challenges of High-Dimensional Data. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2009, 367, 4237–4253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Savitzky, A.; Golay, M.J.E. Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures. Anal. Chem. 1964, 36, 1627–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Scipy Signal Savgol_filter—SciPy v1.8.1 Manual. Available online: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.signal.savgol_filter.html (accessed on 4 July 2022).
  50. Suresh, S.; Srivastava, V.; Mishra, I. Techniques for Oxygen Transfer Measurement in Bioreactors: A Review. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 1091–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bauer, I.; Dreher, T.; Eibl, D.; Glöckler, R.; Husemann, U.; John, G.T.; Kaiser, S.C.; Kampeis, P.; Kauling, J.; Kleebank, S.; et al. Recommendations for Process Engineering Characterisation of Single-Use Bioreactors and Mixing Systems by Using Experimental Methods, 2nd ed.; DECHEMA: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  52. Seidel, S.; Maschke, R.W.; Werner, S.; Jossen, V.; Eibl, D. Oxygen Mass Transfer in Biopharmaceutical Processes: Numerical and Experimental Approaches. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2021, 93, 42–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Werner, S.; Olownia, J.; Egger, D.; Eibl, D. An Approach for Scale-Up of Geometrically Dissimilar Orbitally Shaken Single-Use Bioreactors. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2013, 85, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Andersen, K.B.; von Meyenburg, K. Are Growth Rates of Escherichia coli in Batch Cultures Limited by Respiration? J. Bacteriol. 1980, 144, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lin, H.Y.; Mathiszik, B.; Xu, B.; Enfors, S.-O.; Neubauer, P. Determination of the Maximum Specific Uptake Capacities for Glucose and Oxygen in Glucose-Limited Fed-Batch Cultivations of Escherichia coli. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2001, 73, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. van der Aar, P.C.; van Verseveld, H.W.; Stouthamer, A.H. Stimulated Glycolytic Flux Increases the Oxygen Uptake Rate and Aerobic Ethanol Production, during Oxido-Reductive Growth of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. J. Biotechnol. 1990, 13, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pépin, M.-F.; Archambault, J.; Chavarie, C.; Cormier, F. Growth Kinetics of Vitis Vinifera Cell Suspension Cultures: I. Shake Flask Cultures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1995, 47, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pfizenmaier, J.; Matuszczyk, J.-C.; Takors, R. Changes in Intracellular ATP-Content of CHO Cells as Response to Hyperosmolality. Biotechnol. Prog. 2015, 31, 1212–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aehle, M.; Kuprijanov, A.; Schaepe, S.; Simutis, R.; Lübbert, A. Simplified Off-Gas Analyses in Animal Cell Cultures for Process Monitoring and Control Purposes. Biotechnol. Lett. 2011, 33, 2103–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Biener, R.; Steinkämper, A.; Hofmann, J. Calorimetric Control for High Cell Density Cultivation of a Recombinant Escherichia coli Strain. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 146, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xu, B.; Jahic, M.; Enfors, S.-O. Modeling of Overflow Metabolism in Batch and Fed-Batch Cultures of Escherichia coli. Biotechnol. Prog. 1999, 15, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Stahl, G.; Salem, S.N.B.; Chen, L.; Zhao, B.; Farabaugh, P.J. Translational Accuracy during Exponential, Postdiauxic, and Stationary Growth Phases in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryot. Cell 2004, 3, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. du Preez, J.C.; Maré, J.E.; Albertyn, J.; Kilian, S.G. Transcriptional Repression of ADH2-Regulated β-Xylanase Production by Ethanol in Recombinant Strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res. 2001, 1, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Paalme, T.; Elken, R.; Vilu, R.; Korhola, M. Growth Efficiency of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on Glucose/Ethanol Media with a Smooth Change in the Dilution Rate (A-Stat). Enzym. Microb. Technol. 1997, 20, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lei, F.; Olsson, L.; Jørgensen, S.B. Dynamic Effects Related to Steady-State Multiplicity in Continuous Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Cultivations: Steady-State Multiplicity. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2004, 88, 838–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Granata, T.; Follonier, C.; Burkhardt, C.; Rattenbacher, B. Methods for Oxygenation of Continuous Cultures of Brewer’s Yeast, Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Fermentation 2021, 7, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cuperus, F.S. Influence of UV-B Radiation on Quality Determination Compounds in Must and Wine and Suspension Cell Cultures of Vitis vinifera; ETH Zürich: Zürich, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hirasuna, T.J.; Shuler, M.L.; Lackney, V.K.; Spanswick, R.M. Enhanced Anthocyanin Production in Grape Cell Cultures. Plant Sci. 1991, 78, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Möller, J.; Bhat, K.; Guhl, L.; Pörtner, R.; Jandt, U.; Zeng, A. Regulation of Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex Related to Lactate Switch in CHO Cells. Eng. Life Sci. 2021, 21, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Arndt, L.; Wiegmann, V.; Kuchemüller, K.B.; Baganz, F.; Pörtner, R.; Möller, J. Model-based Workflow for Scale-up of Process Strategies Developed in Miniaturized Bioreactor Systems. Biotechnol. Prog. 2021, 37, e3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Möller, J.; Kuchemüller, K.B.; Steinmetz, T.; Koopmann, K.S.; Pörtner, R. Model-Assisted Design of Experiments as a Concept for Knowledge-Based Bioprocess Development. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 42, 867–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maschke, R.W.; Eibl, D. Process Transfer of CHO Cultivations Using the Minifors 2 as an Example; Infors HT Application Note: Wädenswil, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  73. Müller, J.; Ott, V.; Eibl, D.; Eibl, R. Seed Train Intensification Using an Ultra-High Cell Density Cell Banking Process. Processes 2022, 10, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rhiel, M.; Mitchell-Logean, C.M.; Murhammer, D.W. Comparison of Trichoplusia ni BTI-Tn-5B1-4 (High FiveTM) and Spodoptera frugiperda Sf-9 Insect Cell Line Metabolism in Suspension Cultures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1997, 55, 909–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ghasemi, A.; Bozorg, A.; Rahmati, F.; Mirhassani, R.; Hosseininasab, S. Comprehensive Study on Wave Bioreactor System to Scale up the Cultivation of and Recombinant Protein Expression in Baculovirus-Infected Insect Cells. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 143, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bögli, N.C.; Ries, C.; Adams, T.; Greller, G.; Eibl, D.; Eibl, R. Large-Scale, Insect-Cell–Based Vaccine Development. BioProInt 2015, 10, 40–49. [Google Scholar]
  77. Castillo Salvador, A.E.; Fuge, G.; Jandt, U.; Zeng, A.-P. Growth Kinetics and Validation of Near-Physiologically Synchronized HEK293S Cultures. Eng. Life Sci. 2015, 15, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Martínez-Monge, I.; Comas, P.; Triquell, J.; Lecina, M.; Casablancas, A.; Cairó, J.J. A New Strategy for Fed-Batch Process Control of HEK293 Cell Cultures Based on Alkali Buffer Addition Monitoring: Comparison with O.U.R. Dynamic Method. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 10469–10483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fontova, A.; Lecina, M.; López-Repullo, J.; Martínez-Monge, I.; Comas, P.; Bragós, R.; Cairó, J.J. A Simplified Implementation of the Stationary Liquid Mass Balance Method for On-Line OUR Monitoring in Animal Cell Cultures: Simplified OUR on-Line Monitoring Based on Stationary Liquid Mass Balance. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2018, 93, 1757–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sohoni, S.V.; Bapat, P.M.; Lantz, A.E. Robust, Small-Scale Cultivation Platform for Streptomyces Coelicolor. Microb. Cell Factories 2012, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Anderlei, T.; Keebler, M.V.; Cairó, J.J.; Lecina, M. HEK293 Cell-Based Bioprocess Development at Bench Scale by Means of Online Monitoring in Shake Flasks (RAMOS and SFR). In Animal Cell Biotechnology; Methods in Molecular Biology; Pörtner, R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Volume 2095, pp. 83–103. ISBN 978-1-07-160190-7. [Google Scholar]
  82. Lennox, E.S. Transduction of Linked Genetic Characters of the Host by Bacteriophage P1. Virology 1955, 1, 190–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Terrific Broth (TB) Medium. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2015. Available online: http://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2015/9/pdb.rec085894 (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  84. YPD. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols. 2006. Available online: http://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2006/1/pdb.rec8194 (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  85. Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bio Assays with Tobacco Tissue Cultures. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhao, L.; Fan, L.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, M.; Tan, W. The Role of Microenvironment in Aggregation of the 293-Human Embryonic Kidney Cells. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2007, 24, 796–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Illustration of the workflow, consisting of three parts, to automatically determine the exponential growth phase in a shake flask cultivation. The first part “Initial Phase Fitting & Noise Reduction” of the workflow, shown in yellow, covers noise detection, signal smoothing if necessary, and the initial setting of the start (phasestart) and end (phaseend) of the exponential growth phase as described in Section 2.1.1. The second part “Optimization of phasestart” of the algorithm, depicted in green and described in Section 2.1.2, optimizes the setting of phasestart to improve the exponential fit, thus the predicted value of the exponential growth curve ( y ^ ). The last and third part “Optimization of phaseend” of the workflow shown in blue optimizes the setting of phaseend to further improve the exponential fit and produces the final output ( y ^ ), as described in Section 2.1.3. The individual steps of the algorithm are marked with white rectangles, outputs are highlighted as red rectangles.
Figure 1. Illustration of the workflow, consisting of three parts, to automatically determine the exponential growth phase in a shake flask cultivation. The first part “Initial Phase Fitting & Noise Reduction” of the workflow, shown in yellow, covers noise detection, signal smoothing if necessary, and the initial setting of the start (phasestart) and end (phaseend) of the exponential growth phase as described in Section 2.1.1. The second part “Optimization of phasestart” of the algorithm, depicted in green and described in Section 2.1.2, optimizes the setting of phasestart to improve the exponential fit, thus the predicted value of the exponential growth curve ( y ^ ). The last and third part “Optimization of phaseend” of the workflow shown in blue optimizes the setting of phaseend to further improve the exponential fit and produces the final output ( y ^ ), as described in Section 2.1.3. The individual steps of the algorithm are marked with white rectangles, outputs are highlighted as red rectangles.
Bioengineering 09 00339 g001
Figure 2. Evaluation of OUR and BSL for E. coli W3310 in TB (A) and LB (B) media. The OUR signal (A, yellow line) in unbaffled 500 mL shake flasks, cultivated with 50 mL filling volume, 180 rpm shaking speed and 50 mm shaking amplitude, gives a good estimation of the growth rate with µOUR, auto. = 1.4048 h−1. The oxygen limitation after 4 h is clearly visible in the OUR and the O2 signal (blue line) until the glycerin has been completely consumed, which is indicated by a sharp increase in oxygen (21 h). The BSL signal (green line) in an experiment using LB (B) provides a good qualitative representation of the cultivation. However, the estimated growth rate µBSL, auto. = 0.7561 h−1 is significantly lower compared with the growth rates estimated offline (µCDW, offline = 1.3237 h−1, Appendix B) and online based on the OUR (µOUR, auto. = 1.2075 h−1, data not shown).
Figure 2. Evaluation of OUR and BSL for E. coli W3310 in TB (A) and LB (B) media. The OUR signal (A, yellow line) in unbaffled 500 mL shake flasks, cultivated with 50 mL filling volume, 180 rpm shaking speed and 50 mm shaking amplitude, gives a good estimation of the growth rate with µOUR, auto. = 1.4048 h−1. The oxygen limitation after 4 h is clearly visible in the OUR and the O2 signal (blue line) until the glycerin has been completely consumed, which is indicated by a sharp increase in oxygen (21 h). The BSL signal (green line) in an experiment using LB (B) provides a good qualitative representation of the cultivation. However, the estimated growth rate µBSL, auto. = 0.7561 h−1 is significantly lower compared with the growth rates estimated offline (µCDW, offline = 1.3237 h−1, Appendix B) and online based on the OUR (µOUR, auto. = 1.2075 h−1, data not shown).
Bioengineering 09 00339 g002
Figure 3. Cultivation of S. cerevisiae H1022 in YPD medium (250 mL unbaffled shake flask, 40 mL working volume, 180 rpm, 50 mm amplitude, 30 °C). The OUR curve (yellow) is used to determine the exponential growth phase, starting after a short (approx. 1.5 h) lag/adaption phase until shortly before the metabolic shift (5 h) from glucose consumption and ethanol formation to ethanol consumption. The estimated growth rate based on OUR during glucose consumption µOUR, auto. was 0.445 h−1. Changes in metabolism are also visible as turning points in the pH curve (violet). Furthermore, oxygen limitation is visible by means of the constant OUR and O2 (blue) curves between 8 and 21 h. The consumption of all C-sources (glucose and ethanol) and thus the end of the growth phase is visible in all signals at 21 h (rise of O2 and pH, drop of OUR).
Figure 3. Cultivation of S. cerevisiae H1022 in YPD medium (250 mL unbaffled shake flask, 40 mL working volume, 180 rpm, 50 mm amplitude, 30 °C). The OUR curve (yellow) is used to determine the exponential growth phase, starting after a short (approx. 1.5 h) lag/adaption phase until shortly before the metabolic shift (5 h) from glucose consumption and ethanol formation to ethanol consumption. The estimated growth rate based on OUR during glucose consumption µOUR, auto. was 0.445 h−1. Changes in metabolism are also visible as turning points in the pH curve (violet). Furthermore, oxygen limitation is visible by means of the constant OUR and O2 (blue) curves between 8 and 21 h. The consumption of all C-sources (glucose and ethanol) and thus the end of the growth phase is visible in all signals at 21 h (rise of O2 and pH, drop of OUR).
Bioengineering 09 00339 g003
Figure 4. Comparison of backscattered light signals and growth rate estimations of S. cerevisiae H1022 in unbaffled 250 mL (A) and 500 mL flasks (B), cultivated at 30 °C in YPD medium. The BSL signal (light green) in the 250 mL flask (A) could be used without a filter and provided a fairly good result (µBS, auto. is 0.546 h−1). However, using the BSL signal in the 500 mL flask (B), even after smoothing the signal, was not sufficient to obtain a realistic calculation of the growth rate (neither manually nor algorithm-based).
Figure 4. Comparison of backscattered light signals and growth rate estimations of S. cerevisiae H1022 in unbaffled 250 mL (A) and 500 mL flasks (B), cultivated at 30 °C in YPD medium. The BSL signal (light green) in the 250 mL flask (A) could be used without a filter and provided a fairly good result (µBS, auto. is 0.546 h−1). However, using the BSL signal in the 500 mL flask (B), even after smoothing the signal, was not sufficient to obtain a realistic calculation of the growth rate (neither manually nor algorithm-based).
Bioengineering 09 00339 g004
Figure 5. Cultivation of V. vinifera in 500 mL unbaffled shake flasks with 100 mL working volume, 120 rpm shaking rate and 50 mm shaking amplitude. For the algorithm-based determination of the growth rate, the BSL signal was used (A, light green line, µBSL, auto. = 0.0090 h−1). Changes in carbon source uptake (B, sucrose, glucose, and fructose measurements) are visible as drops in the dissolved oxygen signal (A, blue line). The uptake of inorganic ions (data not shown) is visible at the pH signal (purple line), primarily the turning point after 16 h.
Figure 5. Cultivation of V. vinifera in 500 mL unbaffled shake flasks with 100 mL working volume, 120 rpm shaking rate and 50 mm shaking amplitude. For the algorithm-based determination of the growth rate, the BSL signal was used (A, light green line, µBSL, auto. = 0.0090 h−1). Changes in carbon source uptake (B, sucrose, glucose, and fructose measurements) are visible as drops in the dissolved oxygen signal (A, blue line). The uptake of inorganic ions (data not shown) is visible at the pH signal (purple line), primarily the turning point after 16 h.
Bioengineering 09 00339 g005
Figure 6. Cultivation of ExpiCHO-S 6H8 (A,C,D) and CHP DP12 #1934 (B) cells in unbaffled 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks with 80 mL working volume, 120 rpm shaking rate and 50 mm shaking amplitude. Growth rate determination was performed with the OUR signal (yellow line), resulting in µOUR, auto. = 0.037 h−1 for ExpiCHO-S (A), and µOUR, auto. = 0.0343 h−1 for CHO DP-12 (B). For low cell densities, the BSL signal had a high signal to noise ratio, which decreased as cell density (C) increased. The BSL signal increased as viability decreased, indicating a measurement of the dead cell density (C). The production and consumption of lactate was visible in the pH signal (purple line), with the lactate shift at 120 h clearly visible (D).
Figure 6. Cultivation of ExpiCHO-S 6H8 (A,C,D) and CHP DP12 #1934 (B) cells in unbaffled 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks with 80 mL working volume, 120 rpm shaking rate and 50 mm shaking amplitude. Growth rate determination was performed with the OUR signal (yellow line), resulting in µOUR, auto. = 0.037 h−1 for ExpiCHO-S (A), and µOUR, auto. = 0.0343 h−1 for CHO DP-12 (B). For low cell densities, the BSL signal had a high signal to noise ratio, which decreased as cell density (C) increased. The BSL signal increased as viability decreased, indicating a measurement of the dead cell density (C). The production and consumption of lactate was visible in the pH signal (purple line), with the lactate shift at 120 h clearly visible (D).
Bioengineering 09 00339 g006
Figure 7. Measurement principle of the SFR vario. The biomass is measured via backscattered light, pH, and O2, via integrated sensor spots. Backscattered light is measured using an LED with peak wavelength of about 605 nm and the reflected light is detected by a photodiode.
Figure 7. Measurement principle of the SFR vario. The biomass is measured via backscattered light, pH, and O2, via integrated sensor spots. Backscattered light is measured using an LED with peak wavelength of about 605 nm and the reflected light is detected by a photodiode.
Bioengineering 09 00339 g007
Table 1. Information stored in the recipe. The values of the individual attributes may differ from organism to organism, especially if the cultivation time varies considerably.
Table 1. Information stored in the recipe. The values of the individual attributes may differ from organism to organism, especially if the cultivation time varies considerably.
AttributeInformationValue
O2, thresholdOxygen limit when it can be assumed that exponential growth is impossible.10–20%
Growth speedGrowth speed of the organismFast, medium, slow
Table 2. Organism-based evaluation of BSL and OUR signal for baffled and unbaffled shake flasks.
Table 2. Organism-based evaluation of BSL and OUR signal for baffled and unbaffled shake flasks.
OrganismFlask TypeBackscatterOUR
E. coliWithout bafflesAverageGood
With bafflesNoisy at low filling volumesGood
S. cerevisiaeWithout bafflesAverageGood
With bafflesNoisy at low filling volumesGood
V. viniferaWith and without bafflesGoodMetabolic changes affect signal
CHO cellsWithout bafflesDetection of dead cellsGood
High FiveWithout bafflesDetection of dead cellsGood
HEK293With and without bafflesDetection of dead cellsGood
Table 3. Overview of the KPIs for all investigated organisms under standard conditions described in Section 2. For every investigated organism–medium combination, the number of replicates is indicated in brackets (replicates). µoffline was calculated based on measurements of cell dry weight for E. coli, S. cerevisiae and V. vinifera and viable cell density for CHO, HEK and High Five cells. The calculation of µBSL and µOUR was distinguished between manual (man) and automatic (auto) evaluation. The use of the BSL signal appeared to be useful only for S. cerevisiae and V. vinifera, whereas the use of the OUR only for V. vinifera did not seem to be purposeful. The calculated cell-specific oxygen uptake rates and biomass yields are based on the biomass measurements typically used for the organisms, i.e., cell dry weight for E. coli, S. cerevisiae and V. vinifera, and viable cell density for CHO, HEK and High Five.
Table 3. Overview of the KPIs for all investigated organisms under standard conditions described in Section 2. For every investigated organism–medium combination, the number of replicates is indicated in brackets (replicates). µoffline was calculated based on measurements of cell dry weight for E. coli, S. cerevisiae and V. vinifera and viable cell density for CHO, HEK and High Five cells. The calculation of µBSL and µOUR was distinguished between manual (man) and automatic (auto) evaluation. The use of the BSL signal appeared to be useful only for S. cerevisiae and V. vinifera, whereas the use of the OUR only for V. vinifera did not seem to be purposeful. The calculated cell-specific oxygen uptake rates and biomass yields are based on the biomass measurements typically used for the organisms, i.e., cell dry weight for E. coli, S. cerevisiae and V. vinifera, and viable cell density for CHO, HEK and High Five.
OrganismMediumµofflineµBSL, man.µBSL, auto.µOUR, man.µOUR, auto.qO2YX/S
(Replicates)[h−1][h−1][h−1][h−1][h−1][mol g−1 h−1][g g−1]
E. coliLB (6)1.2982 ± 0.1153--1.2752 ± 0.20491.2075 ± 0.15111.65 ± 0.28 × 10−2- 1
TB (6)1.2889 ± 0.0453--1.3421 ± 0.04191.3778 ± 0.01911.82 ± 0.33 × 10−21.679 ± 0.032 2
Biener (4)0.6199 ± 0.0194--0.6432 ± 0.00410.5820 ± 0.00212.13 ± 0.41 × 10−20.434 ± 0.065
S. cerevisiaeYPD (10)0.4964 ± 0.03440.6226 ± 0.12940.5110 ± 0.09070.4895 ± 0.04460.4744 ± 0.04242.59 ± 0.39 × 10−30.812 ± 0.168 2
V. viniferaMS (12)0.0084 ± 0.00090.0088 ± 0.00090.0080 ± 0.0008--2.29 ± 0.40 × 10−40.474 ± 0.037
[mol cell−1 h−1][106 cells g−1]
CHO DP-12TC-42 (8)0.0349 ± 0.0017--0.0335 ± 0.00180.0327 ± 0.00112.88 ± 0.62 × 10−131.990 ± 0.140
ExpiCHO-SSPM (6)0.0390 ± 0.0007--0.0359 ± 0.00050.0362 ± 0.00072.28 ± 0.24 × 10−133.126 ± 0.065
High FiveExp.Five (8)0.0445 ± 0.0014--0.0453 ± 0.00170.0430 ± 0.00104.18 ± 0.02 × 10−131.274 ± 0.057
HEK293FS293 (6)0.0315 ± 0.0026--0.0365 ± 0.00100.0355 ± 0.00059.86 ± 3.76 × 10−141.392 ± 0.151
1 No yield was calculated as growth was only supported by complex media ingredients. 2 The yield for complex media TB and YPD was significantly higher because complex media components were used for maintenance metabolism and biomass growth in addition to the added carbon source.
Table 4. Comparison of automatically determined growth rates, specific oxygen uptake rates and biomass yield with published reference values. As far as possible, similar/same strains, media and process conditions were considered for the selection of literature data.
Table 4. Comparison of automatically determined growth rates, specific oxygen uptake rates and biomass yield with published reference values. As far as possible, similar/same strains, media and process conditions were considered for the selection of literature data.
Organismµauto. 1µlitqO2, auto.qO2, lit.YX/SYX/S,litReferences
[h−1][h−1][mol g−1 h−1][mol g−1 h−1][g g−1][g g−1]
E. coli 20.5820 ± 0.00210.54-0.562.13 ± 0.41 × 10−21.3–2.2 × 10−2 0.434 ± 0.0650.50–0.54[54,55,60,61]
S. cerevisiae0.4744 ± 0.04240.42–0.512.59 ± 0.39 × 10−31.0–9.0 × 10−30.812 ± 0.168N.A. 2[56,62,63,64,65,66]
V. vinifera0.0080 ± 0.00080.0065–0.012.29 ± 0.40 × 10−41.1–7.1 × 10−40.474 ± 0.0370.47–0.49[57,67,68]
[mol cell−1 h−1][mol cell−1 h−1][106 cells g−1][106 cells g−1]
CHO DP-120.0327 ± 0.00110.0358–0.03632.88 ± 0.62 × 10−133.10 × 10−131.990 ± 0.1402.063–2.216[58,69,70,71,72]
ExpiCHO-S0.0362 ± 0.00070.0316–0.04222.28 ± 0.24 × 10−132.30–2.90 × 10−133.126 ± 0.0653.3–3.4[59,73]
High Five0.0430 ± 0.00100.028–0.0444.18 ± 0.02 × 10−132.88–9.00 × 10−131.274 ± 0.0571.250[74,75,76]
HEK2930.0355 ± 0.00050.03–0.059.86 ± 3.76 × 10−141.30–1.85 × 10−131.392 ± 0.151N.A.[77,78,79]
1 except Vitis vinifera, all µauto. were based on OUR values. 2 Since the yields for LB and TB depend on the complex substrates used, the values for the chemically defined Biener medium were used. Therefore, a meaningful comparison with literature data was also not possible for the complex YPD medium.
Table 5. Overview of the cell lines (with origin or ordering number) and media (all serum-free or chemically defined).
Table 5. Overview of the cell lines (with origin or ordering number) and media (all serum-free or chemically defined).
Cell LineOrigin/SourceMedia
CHO DP-12 #1934Subclone, courtesy of
Prof. Noll, Bielefeld
TC-42 (cat. 511-0001, Xell AG, Bielefeld, Germany) 1
ExpiCHO-S-6H8Thermo Fisher Scientific,
cat. A29127
ExpiCHO Stable production medium (cat. A3711001) 2
Freestyle 293 (HEK)Thermo Fisher Scientific,
cat. R79007
FreeStyle Expression 293 (cat. 12338018)
High FiveThermo Fisher Scientific,
cat. B85502
Express Five SFM (cat. 10486025) 3
With addition of: 1 6 mmol L−1 Glutamine (cat. 25030081, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), 0.1 mg L−1 LONG® R3 IGF-I human (cat. 60356-, SAFC Biosciences); 2 4 mmol L−1 GlutaMAX (cat. 35050-061, Thermo Fisher Scientific); 3 18 mmol L−1 L-Glutamine (cat. 25030081, Thermo Fisher Scientific).
Table 6. Cultivation conditions for the selected cell lines including shaker temperature, shaking rate, relative filling volume (Vrel) and CO2 concentration in the incubator atmosphere. Humidity was set to 80% for all experiments.
Table 6. Cultivation conditions for the selected cell lines including shaker temperature, shaking rate, relative filling volume (Vrel) and CO2 concentration in the incubator atmosphere. Humidity was set to 80% for all experiments.
Cell LineTemperature [°C]Shaking Rate [rpm]Vrel [%]CO2 [%]
CHO DP-1237120327.5
EXPI-CHO S3713024–328.0
Freestyle 29337130328.0
High Five27100240.0
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maschke, R.W.; Pretzner, B.; John, G.T.; Herwig, C.; Eibl, D. Improved Time Resolved KPI and Strain Characterization of Multiple Hosts in Shake Flasks Using Advanced Online Analytics and Data Science. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9080339

AMA Style

Maschke RW, Pretzner B, John GT, Herwig C, Eibl D. Improved Time Resolved KPI and Strain Characterization of Multiple Hosts in Shake Flasks Using Advanced Online Analytics and Data Science. Bioengineering. 2022; 9(8):339. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9080339

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maschke, Rüdiger W., Barbara Pretzner, Gernot T. John, Christoph Herwig, and Dieter Eibl. 2022. "Improved Time Resolved KPI and Strain Characterization of Multiple Hosts in Shake Flasks Using Advanced Online Analytics and Data Science" Bioengineering 9, no. 8: 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9080339

APA Style

Maschke, R. W., Pretzner, B., John, G. T., Herwig, C., & Eibl, D. (2022). Improved Time Resolved KPI and Strain Characterization of Multiple Hosts in Shake Flasks Using Advanced Online Analytics and Data Science. Bioengineering, 9(8), 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9080339

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop