Entwicklung und Optimierung eines Verfahrens zur Viruspropagation von Parapoxvirus Ovis NZ-2

Parapoxvirus-ovis, Bovine Kidney Cell Line, Fed-Batch, Dialysis, Volume-Expanded-Fed Batch, Scale-Up, Shear-Force, Membrane AerationMagdeburg, Univ., Fak. für Verfahrens- und Systemtechnik, Diss., 2005von Michael Pohlscheid

Pretreatment of rats with the inducing agents phenobarbitone and 3-methylcholanthrene ameliorates the toxicity of chromium (VI) in hepatocytes

To exert cytotoxicity chromium VI (Cr(VI)) has to be reduced inside cells. This is achieved through both enzymatic and non-enzymatic mechanisms. Enzymatic mechanisms include DT-diaphorase, cytochrome P450, and NADPH cytochrome c reductase, and non-enzymatic mechanisms involve reduced glutathione (GSH) and ascorbic acid. The extent of cytotoxicity of Cr(VI) may thus be influenced by the availability of non-enzymatic reductants, and by the activities of the reductase enzymes. In the present paper we have investigated the effect of pretreatment with the inducing agents, phenobarbitone (PB) and 3-methylcholanthrene (3-MC), on the response of rat hepatocytes to Cr(VI). Pretreatment with PB increased the activity of NADPH cytochrome c reductase, and 3-MC increased DT-diaphorase activity in hepatocytes. Both inducers increased cytochrome P450 content, while neither influenced intracellular GSH content or the activity of glutathione reductase. Pretreatment with either PB or 3-MC resulted in amelioration of Cr(VI) toxicity both in terms of hepatocyte viability, and to a greater extent, in terms of Cr(VI) induced GSH loss. We propose that the inducing agents increase the amount of enzymatic reduction of Cr(VI) relative to non-enzymatic reduction. Thus, less GSH is used in the reduction of Cr(VI), and intracellular GSH does not fall as rapidly as in cells from control animals therefore cell integrity is better maintained. Exposure to environmental inducing agents in vivo may also alter the response of human tissues to Cr(VI)

A test facility for fritted spargers of production-scale-bioreactors

The production of therapeutic proteins requires qualification of equipment components and appropriate validation procedures for all operations. Since protein productions are typically performed in bioreactors using aerobic cultivation processes air sparging is an essential factor. As recorded in literature, besides ring spargers and open pipe, sinter frits are often used as sparging elements in large scale bioreactors. Due to the manufacturing process these frits have a high lot-to-lot product variability. Experience shows this is a practical problem for use in production processes of therapeutic proteins, hence frits must be tested before they can be employed. The circumstance of checking quality and performance of frits as sparging elements was investigated and various possibilities have been compared. Criteria have been developed in order to evaluate the sparging performance under conditions comparable to those in production bioreactors. The oxygen mass transfer coefficient (kLa) was chosen as the evaluation criterion. It is well known as an essential performance measure for fermenters in the monoclonal antibody production. Therefore a test rig was constructed able to automatically test frit-spargers with respect to their kLa-values at various gas throughputs. Performance differences in the percent range could be detected

Arginine‐enveloped virus inactivation and potential mechanisms

Arginine synergistically inactivates enveloped viruses at a pH or temperature that does little harm to proteins, making it a desired process for therapeutic protein manufacturing. However, the mechanisms and optimal conditions for inactivation are not fully understood, and therefore, arginine viral inactivation is not used industrially. Optimal solution conditions for arginine viral inactivation found in the literature are high arginine concentrations (0.7–1 M), a time of 60 min, and a synergistic factor of high temperature (≥40°C), low pH (≤pH 4), or Tris buffer (5 mM). However, at optimal conditions full inactivation does not occur over all enveloped viruses. Enveloped viruses that are resistant to arginine often have increased protein stability or membrane stabilizing matrix proteins. Since arginine can interact with both proteins and lipids, interaction with either entity may be key to understanding the inactivation mechanism. Here, we propose three hypotheses for the mechanisms of arginine induced inactivation. Hypothesis 1 describes arginine‐induced viral inactivation through inhibition of vital protein function. Hypothesis 2 describes how arginine destabilizes the viral membrane. Hypothesis 3 describes arginine forming pores in the virus membrane, accompanied by further viral damage from the synergistic factor. Once the mechanisms of arginine viral inactivation are understood, further enhancement by the addition of functional groups, charges, or additives may allow the inactivation of all enveloped viruses in mild conditions