2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2010.11.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemical and biological characterisation of a sensor surface for bioprocess monitoring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 2c shows the leakage profiles of the three prolonged fermentations, where Fab 0 leakage was 22.8 AE 3.2% of the total productivity at 35 h increasing to 36.1 AE 2.2% at 63 h of product formation. Similar levels of leakage shown here were also noted in the same cultivation by Moore et al 27 through the use of a biosensor for process monitoring. Because the product leakage is associated with the integrity of the cell wall, this fermentation process provides a good case study to verify the use of scale-down tools available, for predicting harvest time effects on downstream processing performance.…”
Section: Growth and Product Characterizationsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Figure 2c shows the leakage profiles of the three prolonged fermentations, where Fab 0 leakage was 22.8 AE 3.2% of the total productivity at 35 h increasing to 36.1 AE 2.2% at 63 h of product formation. Similar levels of leakage shown here were also noted in the same cultivation by Moore et al 27 through the use of a biosensor for process monitoring. Because the product leakage is associated with the integrity of the cell wall, this fermentation process provides a good case study to verify the use of scale-down tools available, for predicting harvest time effects on downstream processing performance.…”
Section: Growth and Product Characterizationsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The product loss in the MSBR (453 ± 26 μg/mL) was also found to be similar to that in the 20‐L STR (450 ± 42 μg/mL) (Figure 8) showing that the environment in the MSBR did not affect product loss more than in the 20‐L STR. Product loss was also comparable to that found by Moore et al (2011) 41. Overall the growth and product characteristics compare well between both reactors suggesting successful scale down translation of this fermentation process.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Previous systems have used BLI and MS techniques to evaluate protein binding of two and three component systems as well as integrity of receptor binding of expressed protein, but, in both instances, the methods were not developed to take advantage of the tandem EM/MS approach 8 9 . The only other interferometry system that combined MS analysis to help characterize interactions was a dual-polarization interferometry 10 . Unfortunately, this system is no longer available for general use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%