Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38951328›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Adaptive Laboratory Evolution to Improve Recombinant Protein Production Using Insect Cells.

Ricardo Correia, Bárbara Fernandes, Paula M Alves, António Roldão

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ricardo CorreiaiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.
Bárbara FernandesiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.
Paula M AlvesiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.
António RoldãoiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal. aroldao@ibet.pt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptive laboratory evolution (ALE) is a powerful tool for enhancing the fitness of cell lines in specific applications, including recombinant protein production. Through adaptation to nonstandard culture conditions, cells can develop specific traits that make them high producers. Despite being widely used for microorganisms and, to lesser extent, for mammalian cells, ALE has been poorly leveraged for insect cells. Here, we describe a method for adapting insect High Five and Sf9 cells to nonstandard culture conditions via an ALE approach. Aiming to demonstrate the potential of ALE to improve productivity of insect cells, two case studies are demonstrated. In the first, we adapted insect High Five cells from their standard pH (6.2) to neutral pH (7.0); this adaptation allowed to improve production of influenza virus-like particles (VLPs) by threefold, using the transient baculovirus expression vector system. In the second, we adapted insect Sf9 cells from their standard culture temperature (27 °C) to hypothermic growth (22 °C); this adaptation allowed to improve production of influenza VLPs by sixfold, using stable cell lines. These examples demonstrate the potential of ALE for enhancing productivity within distinct insect cell hosts and expression systems by manipulating different culture conditions.

Indexed as

Recombinant ProteinsAnimalsBaculoviridaeCell Culture TechniquesCell LineDirected Molecular EvolutionHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationInsectaSf9 CellsTemperatureRecombinant ProteinsAdaptive laboratory evolution (ALE)IC-BEVSImproved productivityInsect cellsNonstandard culture conditions

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.