ArticleCytotechnology2016
Verhulst and stochastic models for comparing mechanisms of MAb productivity in six CHO cell lines.
Article in Cytotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanochemical Synergism of Reactive Oxygen Species Influences on RBC Membrane.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study validates previously published methodologies-stochastic and Verhulst-for modelling the growth and MAb productivity of six CHO cell lines grown in batch cultures. Cytometric and biochemical data were used to model growth and productivity. The stochastic explanatory models were developed to improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of growth and productivity, whereas the Verhulst mechanistic models were developed for their predictability. The parameters of the two sets of models were compared for their biological significance. The stochastic models, based on the cytometric data, indicated that the productivity mechanism is cell specific. However, as shown before, the modelling results indicated that G2 + ER indicate high productivity, while G1 + ER indicate low productivity, where G1 and G2 are the cell cycle phases and ER is Endoplasmic Reticulum. In all cell lines, growth proved to be inversely proportional to the cumulative G1 time (CG1T) for the G1 phase, whereas productivity was directly proportional to ER. Verhulst's rule, "the lower the intrinsic growth factor (r), the higher the growth (K)," did not hold for growth across all cell lines but held good for the cell lines with the same growth mechanism-i.e., r is cell specific. However, the Verhulst productivity rule, that productivity is inversely proportional to the intrinsic productivity factor (r x ), held well across all cell lines in spite of differences in their mechanisms for productivity-that is, r x is not cell specific. The productivity profile, as described by Verhulst's logistic model, is very similar to the Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetic equation, suggesting that productivity is more likely enzymatic in nature. Comparison of the stochastic and Verhulst models indicated that CG1T in the cytometric data has the same significance as r, the intrinsic growth factor in the Verhulst models. The stochastic explanatory and the Verhulst logistic models can explain the differences in the productivity of the six clones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.